Preamble

The House met at a Quarter before Three of the Clock, Mr. SPEAKER, in, the Chair.

PRIVATE BUSINESS.

City of London (Various Powers) Bill,

As amended, considered; to be read the Third time.

Chosen Syndicate Bill [Lords],

Read a Second time, and committed.

Bermondsey Borough Council (Street Trading) Bill (by Order),

Consideration, as amended, deferred till Wednesday, at Quarter-past Eight of the Clock.

Shoreham Harbour Bill (by Order),

Second Reading deferred till To-morrow.

Oral Answers to Questions — INDIA.

ARMY CANTEEN BOARD.

Mr. ATTLEE: 1.
asked the Under-Secretary of State for India whether any Report has been received from the Committee appointed to inquire into the Army Canteen Board (India); if so, what are the general conclusions of the Committee; and whether he will make the Report available for Members of Parliament?

The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for INDIA (Lord Winterton): Some preliminary conclusions relating to the present financial position of the board have been received, but a final Report dealing with the general question of the future of the board is still awaited. My Noble Friend will consider the question of publication when the Report is available.

Mr. ATTLEE: Does not the right hon. Gentleman think it would be better if the same body which has charge of canteens all over the world should have charge of canteens in India?

Lord WINTERTON: Surely that is a question which will arise when the report has been received.

Mr. ATTLEE: 2.
asked the Under-Secretary of State for India what qualifications the present director and manager of the Army Canteen Board (India) possessed for his appointment; and whether other persons were considered for the appointment in competition with him?

Lord WINTERTON: This appointment is not an official one. The qualifications are fixed and the selection is made by the Board itself. The present holder is described as being of Bombay and as having wide commercial experience, but otherwise I have no information.

Mr. ATTLEE: Is the present holder now under notice?

Lord WINTERTON: No. The present holder is now officiating in his position. He has just been found guilty of a serious offence and has appealed against the conviction. Until the appeal is heard he remains in his position. If he is found guilty by the final Court, he will not he allowed to retain his position.

Colonel WEDGWOOD: Is he actually in prison at the moment?

Lord WINTERTON: If a man appeals against a conviction, it would be very unfair to deprive him of his position until his appeal has been heard. That is only elementary justice.

MANSLAUGHTER PROSECUTION, SIMLA.

Colonel DAY: 5.
asked the Under-Secretary of State for India what was the result of the trial recently held in which the controller of the Army canteen board at Simla was charged with kicking a native rickshaw coolie to death?

Lord WINTERTON: I would refer to my reply given on this subject to the hon. Member for the Western Isles (Mr. Livingstone) on the 8th March, to which I have nothing to add.

Colonel DAY: Is any further action contemplated? Does the noble Lord intend to take any further disciplinary action?

Lord WINTERTON: If the hon. Member will read my answer on the date to which I refer, he will see that this case is under appeal. By the Rules of this House it is impossible to discuss by way of question and answer any case which is under appeal, and I must respectfully decline to make any comments upon it.

BENGAL CRIMINAL JUSTICE ACT.

Mr. THURTLE: 7.
asked the Under-Secretary of State for India if, in view of the fact that the validity of every order of restriction under the Bengal Criminal Justice Act is limited by law to a period of one year, he will recommend that as and when these orders expire in future there shall be no renewals without a public examination of the evidence upon which the orders are based, in accordance with the ordinary procedure of the law?

Lord WINTERTON: No, Sir. A public examination of the evidence is no more practicable at the end of the year than at the beginning.

Mr. THURTLE: Does the Noble Lord wish to convey to the House that the Government of India propose to keep those men confined for lifetime without trial?

Lord WINTERTON: The hon. Member was himself a member of the deputation which discussed this matter fully with the Secretary of State, and I shall be pleased to answer the question he has put very fully if he will raise the matter in debate.

IMPERIAL PREFERENCE.

Mr. JACOB: 4.
asked the Under-Secretary of State for India whether, with a view to extending British markets and relieving unemployment, he will do everything possible to arrange for preferential treatment of British goods in our Asiatic Colonies and Dependencies, namely, Ceylon, Hong Kong, Straits Settlements, Malay States, North Borneo, Brunei, Sarawak, and Aden, which at present do not appear to reciprocate our preference for Empire products?

The SECRETARY of STATE for COLONIAL AFFAIRS (Mr. Amery): With one or two exceptions goods imported into Hong Kong and Malaya are not subject to impart duty and my right hon. Friend informs me that there are no customs duties at Aden. I am not in a position to interfere in the internal administration of North Borneo and Sarawak. The question of granting preference to British goods was discussed by the Legislative Council of Ceylon a few years ago and was rejected, and I am not prepared to reopen the matter at the present time.

Colonel DAY: Will the right hon. Gentleman say what the exceptions are?

Mr. AMERY: I should like to have notice of that question.

Mr. JACOB: 9.
asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies why British imports have no tariff preference in the African Colonies not possessing responsible Government, namely, Kenya, Zanzibar, Sudan, Somaliland, St. Helena, Gold Coast, Nigeria, Sierra Leone, and Gambia, although some of their produce enjoys preference in the British market; and, in view of the promises of the Government at the 1924 Election to extend Empire Preference, will he use his influence to bring these Colonies and possessions into line with the self-governing African Colonies on the subject of preference for British goods?

Mr. AMERY: Of the dependencies mentioned, Kenya, Zanzibar, the Gold Coast and Nigeria, differential treatment is excluded by international agreements. The Sudan is not under the supervision of the. Colonial Office. As regards the others the matter will receive consideration, but the peculiar conditions, geographical and financial, of the Gambia, St. Helena and Somaliland render it unlikely that an extension of Imperial Preference would be beneficial to those dependencies or materially assist British trade.

Sir FREDRIC WISE: What does the Sudan come under?

Mr. AMERY: The Foreign Office.

Sir WILLIAM DAVISON: Do we receive the same treatment with regard to other nations which they mete out to us under the agreements to which the right hon. Gentleman has referred?

Mr. AMERY: Yes, Sir. One set of agreements is that initiated by the Berlin and Brussels Act; which affects all European Powers within certain degrees of latitude in Equatorial Africa. Another agreement is the agreement of 1898, between ourselves and France, under which in certain West African territories of both Powers no discriminating duties are to be imposed.

PALESTINE (CIVIL SERVICE SALARIES).

Mr. PETHICK-LAWRENCE: 10.
asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies why the rule which previously existed in the Palestinian Civil Service that the office or capacity of the official should determine the rate of payment and that men and women should be paid equally for the same work has now been departed from, so that a different scale of salaries is being paid as between men and women in the junior service?

Mr. AMERY: The present arrangements were introduced in 1924, as part of a general revision of the salaries of the junior service in Palestine. They are in accordance with precedents in the home and Colonial services.

Mr. PETHICK-LAWRENCE: In view of the fact that this is causing a good deal of feeling, will the right hon. Gentleman consider this method of payment?

Mr. AMERY: I think that is a matter which can best be left to the discretion of the authority on the spot.

CHINA (ANTI-BRITISH STRIKE AND BOYCOTT).

Mr. VIANT: 11.
asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies if he is aware that the Canton Government has offered to act as mediator between the strikers and the Hong Kong Government, and to use all its influence with the strikers to bring about an early settlement if the. Hong Kong Government will agree in principle to accept the economic terms; that the Hong Kong Government has declined to resume negotiations on this basis, declaring that it will never agree in principle to strike pay or compensation for non-reinstatement of strikers; and what
action, in view of the consequences of a continuation of the strike and boycott, is the Government prepared to take with a view to the resumption of negotiations?

Mr. AMERY: The answer to the first two parts of the question is in the affirmative. With regard to the third part, the offer of the Canton Government to act as mediators only is based on a claim that they are not parties to the strike and boycott. In the view of the Hong Kong Government, however, this claim is vitiated by the fact that the Canton Government have taken no steps to put an end to the intimidation of workers, or to the other illegal activities of the Strike Committee, by means of which alone the strike and boycott at Canton are maintained in being in flagrant violation of treaty obligations; and in these circumstances the Hong Kong Government finds itself unable to, regard the Canton Government as other than principals on whom the responsibility for the continued boycott lies. In adopting this attitude the Hong Kong Government has the full support of His Majesty's Government, and it now remains for the Canton Government to give proof of its; sincerity and to translate from words to deeds its professed desire to see the present state of affairs brought to an end.

Mr. LOOKER: Could not the Canton Government put an end to this strike in a moment if they wanted to, and is the only reason they do not want to because they are influenced by the counsel of the Russian advisers?

Mr. AMERY: I think that is the case.

Mr. THURTLE: Will the right hon. Gentleman give the House the grounds upon which he alleges that Russian agents are responsible?

Mr. AMERY?: This is hardly a suitable occasion for that.

GOLD COAST (ALCOHOLIC LIQUORS).

Mr. TREVELYAN: 12.
asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether the restrictions on the importation of alcoholic liquors into the Gold Coast were removed in 1922, and that the quantities of gin imported have risen from 9,782 gallons to 527,888 gallons in consequence; and whether steps can be taken to replace the restrictions at once?

Mr. AMERY: It is not the case that the restrictions on the importation of alcoholic liquors into the Gold Coast were removed in 1922. The importation of gin was very severely restricted in 1919 pending a decision as to the regime to be applied to the trade in spirits, and this accounts for the very low import of gin — 9,782 gallons—in that year. It was decided in accordance with the Liquor Traffic Convention of 1919 to prohibit only trade spirits and injurious spirits, and the importation of other spirits consequently became more normal. As the imports of spirits in 1924 were not much more than one-third of the imports in 1913, there seems no sufficient ground for altering the present restrictions.

Colonel WEDGWOOD: May I ask whether this 527,000 gallons now imported excludes trade spirits, or whether it includes any of the trade spirits smuggled in over the borders from adjoining territory?

Mr. AMERY: Anything that is smuggled would not, I fancy, come into these statistics. I imagine this total includes all the spirit allowed into the Gold Coast.

Colonel WEDGWOOD: I should not have used the word" smuggled"; I should have said brought in in contravention of the Regulations we enforce as to the importation of spirits. Does it include trade spirits?

Mr. AMERY: I think it does, but if the right hon. and gallant Member will ask a specific question on that point, I will give him a definite answer.

KENYA (NATIVE LAND, ALIENATION).

Mr. THURTLE: 14.
asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies the total amount of native land which has been alienated in Kenya Colony during the last three years; and how much of this land is known to have passed into the ownership of one individual?

Mr. AMERY: From 1923 onwards the alienations of native land have amounted to 1,485 acres, of which 871 acres have
been applied to purposes for native benefit such as trading centres, sites for factories dealing with native products, Government experimental farm, and Mission plots. Of the rest, 500 acres were required for a township site in a newly administered native area, 110 acres were exchanged for an area of 65 acres of more value to the natives concerned and with their full approval, and 4 acres were leased for a saw mill site. The only instance of the land going to an individual was that of the lease of a 3-acre maize-mill site to an Indian, and there is no reason to believe that in any other case has the land subsequently passed to an individual. My information on this subject extends up to August, 1925.

Oral Answers to Questions — AUSTRALIA.

APPOINTMENT OF STATE GOVERNORS.

Captain FAIRFAX: 16.
, asked the Secretary of State for Dominion Affairs whether he has received a request from the State Governments of the Commonwealth of Australia that, after the termination of present appointments, only Australian citizens should hold State Governorships; and what reply has been sent?

Viscount SANDON: 17.
asked the Secretary of State for Dominion Affairs whether, in view of the fact that unofficial surmises have been published in Australia, he will issue officially the text of his despatch on the subject of the memorial as to the appointment of State Governors?

Mr. AMERY: I will answer these questions together. I received last autumn a letter, signed by the Premiers of all the Australian States except Victoria, in which, in effect, it was proposed that it should be laid down as the Constitutional practice to be observed in the future that all vacancies hereafter occurring in the office of State Governor should be filled by Australian citizens nominated by the respective State Governments of the day. I propose to lay papers at an early date, but, in the meantime, I am arranging for a copy of my reply, as conveyed by telegraph on the 8th March, to be circulated in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Following is the information referred to:

APPOINTMENT OF STATE GOVERNORS.

TELEGRAM from the Secretary of State for Dominion Affairs to the Governor of New South Wales.

(Sent 6.0 p.m., 8th March, 1926.)

I have sent to Governors of New South Wales, Queensland, South Australia, Western Australia, Tasmania, by despatches dated 3rd March, reply to letter of 20th August from Premiers of those States regarding appointment of State Governors, and I have sent copy of the letter and reply to Governor of Victoria.

After stating that representations have received most careful consideration, despatch reads as follows begins:
 In this letter the Premiers in effect propose that it should be laid down as the constitutional practice to be observed in the future that all vacancies hereafter occurring in the office of State Governor should be filled by Australian citizens, nominated by the respective State 'Governments of the day.
 The Premiers acknowledge in the warmest terms the qualifications and services both of the existing Governors and of their predecessors, and it is a matter for great satisfaction that the change is not proposed on the ground that the present system does not work well.
On previous occasions on which the question of restricting the field of choice for the State Governorships in this manner has been raised, His Majesty's Government have pointed out certain difficulties to which the proposal appeared to give rise, but, in principle, it was recognised that the ultimate decision rested with the people of Australia. This was asserted by Lord Milner in the most explicit terms when, on the occasion to which allusion is made in the Premiers' letter, he stated that the matter was 'for the Australians themselves to decide.'
Accepting, as they do, the principle that the matter is one to be decided by Australian opinion, it is unnecessary for His Majesty's Government to enter on any discussion of the issues involved in the suggested restriction of the field of choice. But it the Premiers' proposal is to be adopted there should he no doubt that Australian opinion generally is in favour of the change and so strongly in favour of it that a subsequent demand for its reversal is not likely to arise.
It, cannot, in the view of His Majesty's Government, be said that this is the case. On the contrary, it is manifest that there is a very strong opposition to the proposal, and that, having regard to the fact that opinion in Australia on the subject is so acutely divided, there can be no assurance that if the proposal were now agreed to the decision would he accepted as a definitive settlement of the question. His Majesty's Government have, therefore, come to the conclusion that there is no sufficient justification for the suggested abandonment of the existing procedure under which there
is no limitation of choice, and I should he glad if you would inform your Premier accordingly." Ends.

Please repeat to all other State Governors.

AMERY.

BETTING TAX.

Sir HARRY BRITTAIN: 22.
asked the Secretary of State for Dominion Affairs whether he is aware that a tax on betting is imposed throughout the Commonwealth of Australia; will he inquire as to what was the sum collected during the latest year for which figures are available; and to what that sum amounts per head of the population?

Mr. AMERY: The reply to the first part of the question is in the affirmative. I have not information as to sums derived from this source later than that which appears in the Report from the Select Committee on Betting Duty, 1923, but I will make inquiry and communicate further with my hon. Friend.

INCOME-TAX (DOMINIONS).

Colonel DAY: 18.
asked the Secretary of State for Dominion Affairs if he is aware that certain British Dominions are charging agents income tax on the estimated profits of absentee principals; and, in. view of this handicap to the development of Empire trade, will he bring this matter to the notice of the Dominion Governments concerned at the next Imperial Conference?

Mr. AMERY: I have received a Resolution on this subject recently passed by the Association of British Chambers of Commerce, and it will have consideration.

EMPIRE SETTLEMENT.

Sir CLEMENT KINLOCH-COOKE: 19.
asked the Secretary of State for Dominion Affairs if he will give the House the number of persons accepted by the Dominion authorities for migration but still awaiting transportation?

Mr. AMERY: The numbers are as follow:

Canada
…
849 families



…
950 other persons


Australia
…
9,000


New Zealand
…
2,550

Passages are being arranged as the shipping conditions permit.

Sir C. KINLOCH-COOKE: That is the number of families. Can my right hon. Friend state the number of persons included in those families?

Mr. AMERY: I am afraid I could not. I imagine that they would be about three times the number stated.

Sir C. KINLOCH-COOKE: 20.
asked the Secretary of State for Dominion Affairs whether he will circulate in tabular form the number of persons


The BALANCES outward of PASSENGERS of BRITISH NATIONALITY from the UNITED KINGDOM to CANADA, AUSTRALIA, NEW ZEALAND and the UNITED STATES (the only measure available for all the years specified in the question) were as follow:—


Year
British North America.
Australia.
New Zealand.
Other parts of the British Empire outside Europe.
United States.
Other Foreign Countries outside Europe.
Total non-European Countries.


1900
…
…
7,803
6,259
9,376
47,978
228*
71,188


1901
…
…
7,121
6,570
11,548
45,883
894
72,06


1902
…
…
14,730
4,366
30,596
51,617
238
101,547


1903
…
…
45,866
3,693
31,477
65,392
608
147,036


1904
…
…
51,284
5,240
3,015
66,790
525
126,854


1905
…
…
62,503
7,251
7,305
60,997
1,309
139,365


1906
…
…
91,263
3,672
6,248
3,995
85,941
3,552
194,671


1907
…
…
117,525
7,608
6,288
12
99,944
3,715
235,092


1908
…
…
41,455
11,476
8,947
3,286*
31,451
1,113
91,156


1909
…
…
52,378
17,318
7,884
4,142
56,377
1,594
139,693


1910
…
…
115,681
25,332
7,393
10,472
73,569
1,262
233,709


1911
…
…
134,765
56,337
9,432
9,848
49,732
1,695
261,809


1912
…
…
133,561
68,673
11,053
6,701
45,817
2,680
268,485


1913
…
…
127,656
46,012
11,251
3,716
52,155
1,207
241,997


1914
…
…
29,793
20,426
5,301
2,586*
15,637
5,237*
63,334


1915
…
…
12,049*
2,702
977
3,290*
9,533*
3,540*
24,733*


1916
…
…
2,904*
21
51*
1,661*
1,929*
1,651*
8,175*


1917
…
…
3,999
680* 
182
773*
2,157*
1,019*
448*


1918
…
…
872
1,739
289
1,717
2,047*
665*
1,905


1919
…
…
29,679
6,801
1,515
6,949*
6,971*
2,927
27,002


1920
…
…
75,435
19,048
9,936
14,017
49,783
4,528
172,747


1921
…
…
39,049
21,915
9,547
13,567
33,756
1,104
118,938


1922
…
…
30,666
30,385
9,911
745
27,689
486
99,882


1923†
…
…
81,917
30,447
7,412
546*
70,848
305
190,383


1924
…
…
46,469
28,156
8,836
1,826
3,251
127*
88,411


1925
…
…
25,426
27,056
10,541
4,854
18,908
271
87,056


* Excess inward.


†From 1st April, 1923, the figures are exclusive of passengers who departed from, or arrived at, ports in the Irish Free State.

IMPERIAL GRANTS AND LOANS.

Sir F. WISE: 21.
asked the Secretary of State for Dominion Affairs if he will give the details of the loans for Imperial Grant towards interest on certain overseas loans where the contribution does not exceed three-quarters of the interest?
leaving the United Kingdom for Canada, Australia, and New Zealand, respectively, during the years 1900 to 1926, showing each year separately; and whether he will give the emigrant figures for the same period to the United States of America?

A. M. SAMUEL (Secretary, Overseas Trade Department): , Sir. I will have the figures circulated in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Following are the figures promised:

The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the TREASURY (Mr. Ronald McNeill): The Treasury have undertaken to pay three-quarters of the interest payable for five years on a loan of £155,653 raised by the Government of Newfoundland for the purchase of railway material and on a loan of approximately £195,000 raised by the
Government of West Australia for the purchase of a ship, The Treasury have also agreed to pay three-quarters of the interest payable for four years on a, loan of £ 130,000 to be raised by the Sudan Government for the purchase of railway material. The statutory Return showing these grants will be presented to the House next month.

Sir WILFRID SUGDEN: Could my hon. Friend say whether the financial status of Newfoundland is now satisfactory?

Mr. McNEILL: I must ask for notice of that question.

JAMAICA (BANANA EXPORTS).

Mr. JACOB: 24.
asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Overseas Trade Department what quantity of bananas available for export is produced annually in Jamaica, and how much of that quantity comes to Great Britain?

Mr. SAMUEL: Yes, Sir: 12,000,000 stems of bananas were exported from Jamaica during the year 1924, and 15,000,000 stems during 1925. Of these, approximately,1¾ millions and 2½ millions, respectively, were sent to the United Kingdom.

RUSSIA (BRITISH TRADE).

Sir H. BRITTAIN: 26.
asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Overseas Trade Department whether, as a result of the Trade Agreement with Russia, he can state what was the amount per head of population of British goods imported by Russia during the year 1925; and how that compares with similar figures in Australia and New Zealand, respectively?

Mr. SAMUEL: The declared value of exported produce and manufactures of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, registered as consigned to the countries specified during 1925, in proportion to their respective populations, was as follows:

Per Head.





£
s.
d.


Russia
…
…
0
0
11


Australia
…
…
10
2
11


New Zealand
…
…
16
14
3

Mr. A. V. ALEXANDER: Can the hon. Gentleman give us the totals per head of population of other countries in Europe?

Mr. SAMUEL: I cannot offhand, but I think they are very much greater.

Mr. TAYLOR: Can the hon. Gentleman give us the purchasing power per head of the population of British India?

Mr. SAMUEL: British India buys from us about £ 100,000,000 worth of goods per year. She is our best customer.

Oral Answers to Questions — AGRICULTURE.

WOMEN'S WAGES.

Mr. NOEL BUXTON: 27.
asked the Minister of Agriculture whether, in view of the fact that the Agricultural Wages Act, 1924, makes no distinction between men and women, he will take steps to require that the provisions of the Act are carried out in respect of women?

The MINISTER of AGRICULTURE (Mr. Guinness): The provisions of the Agricultural Wages (Regulation) Act that minimum rates of wages shall be fixed for all classes of workers employed in agriculture have been duly carried out in respect of women by every Agricultural Wages Committee. I would refer the right hon. Gentleman to the reply given to the Noble Lady who represents the Sutton Division of Plymouth, on the 3rd instant.

BUXTON: Is it the case that in the great majority of districts the orders do not provide for a weekly guaranteed term as well as wage?

Mr. GUINNESS: I think it is often the case that women have only an hourly rate, and that, of course, precludes arrangements about overtime. But my predecessor made representations to the Committees on this subject, and certain changes have since been made.

WHEAT (BULK PURCHASES).

Mr. BUXTON: 28.
asked the Minister of Agriculture whether, in view of the growing movement for centralised export of wheat in the Dominions, he is prepared to instruct the Committee on Stabilisation of Agricultural Prices to
pursue its inquiry into the facilities for bulk purchase of wheat by a British Governmental agency, as proposed by the Committee in its Report?

Mr. GUINNESS: This matter was considered by the Royal Commission on Food Prices, and, having regard to the views expressed by the Commission, I do not propose to take any further steps at present.

Mr. BUXTON: Has not the matter become more urgent on account of the fixing of the Imperial Conference at an early date?

Mr. GUINNESS: I do not think that that gets over the difficulty. Even with stabilised prices the State is pretty sure to make big looses. While the stabilised price is below the world price, of course the consumer will get the benefit, but if it ever rises above the world price it is practically impossible for any Government to resist the demand for reduction, and there is a heavy loss.

Mr. DALTON: In view of what the right hon. Gentleman has told us, will he give instructions for the discontinuance of this operation?

Mr. GUINNESS: The question was whether they would be instructed to pursue their inquiries?

Colonel WEDGWOOD: Is the object of this central buying and fixing of prices to keep the price high for the benefit of the British farmer, or to keep it low for the benefit of the consumer?

Mr. GUINNESS: The right hon. Gentleman had better consult his colleague as to that.

PATRINGTON FARM SETTLEMENT.

Sir ROBERT HAMILTON: 29.
asked the Minister of Agriculture what the loss to date is on the farm settlement at Patrington; whether it is intended to bring the experiment to an end; and to what use it is now proposed that the land should be put?

Mr. GUINNESS: The latest date to which the annual accounts have been made up is 31st March, 1925, when the accumulated loss in the balance sheet for the farm was £ 62,101, and for the estate £ 24,176. It has been decided to bring the farm settlement to an end at Ladyday,
1927, from which date the land will probably be dealt with in separate farms.

Sir F. WISE: Is this farm leasehold or freehold?

Mr. GUINNESS: I think it is freehold, but I will let my hon. Friend know.

ARGENTINE CATTLE.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: 30.
asked the Minister of Agriculture if he is aware that, owing to the refusal to allow Argentine cattle to be brought to our ports for slaughter, they are being taken alive to Zeebrugge and slaughtered there; that sides of beef from these cattle are being sent to Smithfield market and are indistinguishable from home-killed English beef; that this results in edible offals, and the hides, and other offals for manufacture being retained in Belgium, to the great advantage of the slaughterers, merchants and manufacturers in that country; and that there is a proposal to build large new abattoirs in Zeebrugge for the enlargement of this trade; and whether he will reconsider the question of relaxing the regulations so as to allow clean cattle to be brought to our own ports for slaughter?

Mr. GUINNESS: In the light of former experience that the trade in live cattle with Argentina cannot he conducted without risk of the introduction of disea-e, I am unable by the Diseases of Animals Act, 1894, to allow the entry of such cattle, even for slaughter at the port. The establishment of abattoirs at Zeebrugge, from which fresh carcases of animals newly landed from South America are immediately railed to London is causing me grave concern, and I have instituted active inquiries to ascertain to what extent we are thereby exposed to the danger of the introduction of disease.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that there has been no disease at all introduced into Belgium by this method in recent years? In view of that, is it not time that this policy was reconsidered?

Mr. GUINNESS: I do not know on what information the hon. and gallant Gentleman bases his statement, but there is so much disease throughout the Continent of Western Europe that, naturally, there is no objection to cargoes from
other diseased countries being landed there.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: My information comes from those in the trade, who are in touch with this matter. Is it not a fact that there has been no disease introduced into Belgium from these Argentine cattle?

Mr. GUINNESS: The fact remains that the Argentine at present has a great deal of foot-and-mouth disease. We had a terrible object lesson in 1900, when 26 diseased cargoes from the Argentine were landed at Deptford, and since then, in 1923, we have had the object lesson of the steamer" Hartington," in which disease broke out in a large cargo of cattle, which were thrown overboard in consequence.

SUGAR-BEET FACTORIES

. Mr. FORREST: 32
asked the Minister of Agriculture if he can give a list of the sugar-beet factories which are now actually operating, the names of those built but not operating, the names of those being built, and the names of those for which capital is actually secured; and whether he can state which factories have a substantial or controlling interest of Dutch capital, which factories have an interest of Hungarian capital, and which factories are owned by purely British capital?

Mr. GUINNESS: The beet-sugar manufacturing campaign has now ceased, but the following factories operated during the past season: Cantley, Colwick, Kelham, Ely, Ipswich, Kidderminster, Wissington, Bury St. Edmunds and Greenock. The Spalding factory was built, but did not operate. Factories are now being built at Cupar (Fife), Felstead (Essex), Poppleton (York) and Peterborough, the capital for which, I am Informed, has been secured. The Ely, Ipswich and Cantley factories have a substantial or controlling interest of Dutch capital, the Bury St. Edmunds factory has an interest of Hungarian capital, Peterborough has an interest of American capital, and, so far as I am aware, the remaining factories are solely owned by British capital.

Mr. A. V. ALEXANDER: Can the right hon. Gentleman say whether any of the factories now being built have
secured capital under the trade facilities scheme; and, it so, how many?

Mr. GUINNESS: I think a certain proportion have, but I should like notice of the question.

Mr. HAYES: Is it the case that any of the machinery for these factories has been bought abroad, instead of being bought from British manufacturers?

Mr. GUINNESS: A proportion of the specialised machinery was, in the early days of the factories, bought abroad, but, as the hon. Member is no doubt aware, there is a condition in the Act relating to this matter ensuring that a large percentage shall be bought in this country.

CANADIAN CATTLE.

Mr. BLUNDELL: 33.
asked the Minister of Agriculture whether the Government propose to adopt the recommendations in the Report of the Imperial Shipping Committee on certain aspects of the Canadian cattle trade?

Mr. GUINNESS: With regard to the first recommendation, I am prepared to authorise the use of further additional ports for this trade, if port authorities or private enterprise on whom the onus lies will provide suitable accommodation. I understand that a private company is in process of formation, which intends to provide a landing place for Canadian cattle at Tilbury. I have given careful consideration to the second recommendation as to the three days' quarantine in Canada, but find most grave objections to any revision of the existing requirement. This condition formed part of the original agreement with the representatives of the Canadian Government in October, 1922, as announced in the Press on 3rd November, 1922, and was embodied in Section 1 (2) (c) (i) of the Importation of Animals Act, 1922, as a necessary safeguard against the introduction of disease. For the same reason I consider there are no less cogent objections to any amendment of the Diseases of Animals Acts to exempt cattle, consigned as fat and not undergoing the throe days' quarantine, from slaughter at the port at a foreign animals' wharf, as required by Section 24 and Part I of the Third Schedule of the Act of 1894.

FISH LANDED.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: 31.
asked the Minister of Agriculture what was the approximate value of fish landed in Great Britain and Northern Ireland in 1925; bow much of this fish was landed from British fishing vessels; and how much was landed from British steam trawlers, as distinguished from other types of fishing vessels?

Mr. GUINNESS: The approximate value of fresh fish landed in Great Britain and Northern Ireland in 1925 was £ 23,082,000. The value of fish landed from British vessels was £ 19,340,000, and from British steam trawlers £ 12,400,000.

Sir W. SUGDEN: Will my right hon. Friend endeavour to ensure facilities for British seamen and British trawlers depositing fish in Germany as good as those afforded to Germans for depositing fish in this country?

Mr. GUINNESS: I think the Foreign Office have always tried to improve the facilities for the landing of our fish abroad.

ROYAL PARKS (SPORTS).

Sir H. BRITTAIN: 37.
asked the Under-Secretary of Stale for the Home Department, as representing the First Commissioner of Works, what facilities are offered in the Royal Parks for the encouragement of games and sports; and whether every effort is being made to grant these facilities to the people at the lowest possible price?

Captain HACKING (for the FIRST COMMISSIONER of WORKS): It has been the policy of the Department to endeavour to meet the increasing demand for space for games in the Royal Parks, with due regard to the interests of all classes using the parks. In the outlying parks, facilities are provided for playing football, cricket, hockey, tennis, and golf. I can assure my hon. Friend that the Department endeavours to give these facilities at very reasonable rates, considering the cost to the public of the general upkeep of the parks.

Sir H. BRITTAIN: May I ask whether park golf has been a success?

PLAYING FIELDS.

Colonel DAY: 38.
asked the Minister of Health if he is aware of the resolution of the National Playing Fields Association calling attention to the dearth of playing fields and recreation grounds; and will he consider the advisability of causing an inquiry to be held into the existing facilities for the physical recreation of school children and adult work-people?

The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the MINISTRY of HEALTH (Sir Kingsley Wood): My right hon. Friend is aware of the resolution and of the need for more playing fields and recreation grounds, but he doubts the advantage of an inquiry such as that suggested. Local authorities were given powers in 1925 to provide and equip playing fields, but undoubtedly the present need for economy must delay the full use of these powers.

Colonel DAY: Will the hon. Gentleman consider whether such an inquiry would not be advantageous?

Sir K. WOOD: I have already stated that I do not think it would be.

Oral Answers to Questions — HOUSING.

BUILDING MATERIALS.

Captain FAIRFAX>: 39.
asked the Minister of Health what steps, if any, he is taking to encourage local councils and housing authorities to use British bricks, tiles, and cement in their housing schemes, in view of the increasing import of foreign building materials?

Sir K. WOOD: Section 10 of the Housing Act, 1924, provides that, in approving proposals for the construction of houses, the Minister of Health shall not impose any conditions which would prevent the materials required being purchased in the cheapest market at home or abroad, The Government have, however, urged local authorities to arrange that all contracts for or incidental to works carried out by them should, in the absence of special circumstances, be placed in this country.

Lieut.-Colonel Sir FREDERICK HALL: Does the hon. Gentleman think the greatest benefit to the largest number in this country is obtained by always buying in the cheapest market, irrespective of all other considerations?

Sir K. WOOD: No, Sir. I think my hon. and gallant Friend will be glad to know that the quantity imported during 1925 was under 3 per cent. of the total estimated requirement.

Sir F. HALL: May I ask my hon. Friend whether he does not think some alteration in his reply would be advisable, so that there may be no misunderstanding in the country?

Mr. A. V. ALEXANDER: Will the hon. Gentleman arrange for supplies of these materials for public housing contracts at the same low prices as those which can be secured in connection with Government contracts?

Sir K. WOOD: That is another matter.

Mr. MACQUISTEN: Is the hon. Gentleman aware of the enormous quantity of foreign tiles now being imported, especially into Scotland, which has the finest slate quarries in the world and are we not paying the quarrymen unemployment benefit, which is more expensive—

Mr. SPEAKER: This is not the time for the hon. and learned Member to give information.

POPLAR.

Mr. LANSBURY: 42.
asked the Minister of Health whether he is aware that a considerable number of families are living under unhealthy and insanitary conditions in the Borough of Poplar; that during the past 25 years the public health authority for that borough has made repeated applications and representations to the London County Council, urging that action should be taken to put an end to this condition of affairs; that the inspectors of the Ministry of Health have condemned certain areas as unhealthy, the latest date on which this was done being 10th December, 1924, and the areas thus condemned being Birchfield Street, Bromley, Dunbar Cottages, and Baker's Alley; and, in view of the failure of the London County Council to carry out its statutory duties, will he take such steps as are within his power to compel that authority to deal with those areas?

Sir K. WOOD: My right hon. Friend is aware of insanitary conditions in the Borough of Poplar. The particular areas to which the hon. Member refers were included in an improvement scheme made by the London County Council which my
right hon. Friend confirmed. The County Council are taking steps to carry out the scheme and I understand that considerable progress has been made in regard to the acquisition of the property in these areas.

Mr. LANSBURY: How long will it be before the effort succeeds; and is it not the case that it is over 25 years since representations were first made?

Sir K. WOOD: That may be so, but under the present administration much more expedition is to be expected.

Mr. HORE-BELISHA: What procedure is followed where an inspector condemns property and the local authority does not carry out the recommendation of the inspector?

Sir K. WOOD: That question involves a very detailed reply, but if the hon. Member puts it down, I shall do my best to answer it.

Bow.

Mr. LANSBURY: 43.
asked the Minister of Health whether he is aware that buildings known as Stewart's Cottages and High Street, Bow, areas, which were some years ago acquired by the London County Council for educational purposes, having been condemned as unhealthy and slum areas, still remain untouched and inhabited, and though repeated efforts have been made to compel the County Council to deal with these areas, no action is taken; that an adjoining school, which has also been condemned for many years past, is still being used as an educational centre; and will he take steps to cause the County Council to deal with these unhealthy areas forthwith?

Sir K. WOOD: My right hon. Friend is making inquiries, and will communicate with the hon. Member.

POOR LAW (AMENDMENT).

Sir GERALD STRICKLAND: 41.
asked the Minister of Health whether he can give an assurance, in reference to the Amendments of the Poor Law in process of being drafted, that the centralising of Poor Law administration will stop short of absorbing local authorities of the size, importance, and historical traditions exemplified by Lancaster?

Sir K. WOOD: My right hon. Friend could not properly make any further statement as to the position of any class of local authority while the provisional proposal regarding Poor Law reform are under discussion with the Associations of Local Authorities.

TH DOWNS.

Sir DAVISON: the Prime Minister whether his attention has been called to the imminent encroachment on the amenities of the South Downs by speculative building syndicates; and whether the Government propose to take any action to preserve the downs for the benefit of the public?

PRIME MINISTER (Mr. Bald-win): Measures are already being taken by a number of local authorities for preserving the amenities in the South Downs, and the Minister of Health is encouraging action. The First Commissioner of Works has also scheduled a number of earth works and tumuli on the Downs for preservation as ancient monuments.

ART COLLECTIONS (TRUSTEES).

Mr. R. MORRISON: 97.
asked the Prime Minister whether, in filling vacancies on the body of trustees of such institutions as the Wallace Collection, he will consider the undesirability of appointing dealers in objects included in the collection?

The PRIME MINISTER: Appointments to vacancies arising among the trustees of these institutions are made with the purpose of providing the most suitable candidate available in the conditions existing at the time.

GOVERNMENT STAFFS (REDUCTION).

Mr. ALBERY: 48.
asked the Prime Minister if he will bring before his colleagues in the. near future, for appropriate Departmental action, the desirability in all cases where it is found necessary, owing to reduction of Government establishments, to dismiss members of the staff, of inserting adequate advertisements in the public newspapers, setting out the qualifications of these surplus employés
and their suitability for specific kinds of work, and thus aid in the re-establishment of such employés in ordinary civil life?

Mr. McNEILL: I am afraid that I am unable to adopt my hon. Friend's suggestion.

Oral Answers to Questions — BROADCASTING.

PARLIAMENT AND PUBLIC SPEECHES.

Mr. CAMPBELL: 45.
asked the Prime Minister the result of his conference with the leaders of the other parties with regard to the proposal to broadcast the Budget speech; and whether in that case he will give the decision reached, together with the motives actuating it?

The PRIME MINISTER: I have consulted with the leaders of the other parties, and have obtained information through the usual channels. I have come to the conclusion that there is a greatly preponderating body of opinion against broadcasting the proceedings of this House.

Mr. CAMPBELL: May I thank the Prime Minister on behalf of a long-suffering public?

Captain FRASER: Does not the right hon. Gentleman think there is a section of the community which would like to have this matter investigated; and will he consider the provision of some machinery, whereby the question can be further examined?

Mr HORE-BELISHA: Will the right hon. Gentleman provide an opportunity for discussing the matter in the House?

The PRIME MINISTER: It is quite obvious that if there is any body of opinion in this House whose views have not been brought before me, I shall be pleased to consider those views; and it is possible there may be an opportunity before the end of this Session to discuss the matter. I cannot say more at present.

Mr. GEORGE BALFOUR (by Private Notice): asked the Prime. Minister whether his attention has been called to a speech last Friday evening, and broadcast by the British Broadcasting Company, advocating the Government electricity proposals as" Socialism in small doses"; whether he is further
aware that on the same occasion the Chief Electricity Commissioner, Sir John Snell, in a speech delivered by hint and broadcast, advocated the Government proposals; whether political propaganda is permitted in terms of the licence of the British Broadcasting Company, and what, disciplinary action he proposes to take in connection with the action of the Chief Electricity Commissioner engaging in political propaganda in connection with legislation pending in this House, and closely identified with the executive functions of the Electricity Commissioners?

The PRIME MINISTER: I have read the report of the speeches delivered on the occasion referred to. Permission was given for broadcasting on this occasion, in accordance with the usual practice as regards public dinners, and upon the usual understanding that the speakers would refrain from controversial statements of a political character.
As regard's Sir John Snell, I am informed that he gave a review of the electrical position in this country, and stated his view as to the line of technical improvement desirable. His only reference to politics was a statement that a Bill embodying the scheme was before Parliament, and it was not for him to hazard any opinion as to how it would emerge. He further appealed to the electrical experts present to give constructive criticism.
I do not think that these references to Parliament in an after-dinner speech can he considered to be political, and I am assured by Sir John Snell that in his speech he was dealing with a technical problem in a technical manner.

Mr. BALFOUR: Is it not a fact that in considering a highly technical matter of this kind it all depends upon the technical facts which are alleged, and that on this occasion the speech was directly intended to convey that the proposals to be submitted to this House in a few days' time were, in fact, sound and right; that being so, I should like to know whether the Prime Minister does not consider that a highly technical matter of this kind was, indeed, most flagrant political propaganda?

The PRIME MINISTER: I do not agree with the conclusion of my hon.
Friend. If speeches are to be delivered entirely free from any possible cause of complaint such as my hon. Friend has indicated, the only way to avoid trouble is to bar broadcasting of such speeches altogether. Whether that should be done or not is a legitimate subject for consideration. It is not an easy matter for the Postmaster-General to have to decide what may or may not be 'broadcasted at dinners of this kind. My awn view is that the subject-matter is one of great interest, and that my right hon. Friend did right in giving permission. I do not think there has been any breach of propriety, and there I frankly disagree with my hon. Friend. But, as I said before, the only way to obviate all difficulties of this kind in future is to prevent speeches of this kind being made at all.

Mr. DENNIS HERBERT: Does not the right hon. Gentleman consider that a public servant in the position of Sir John Snell has no business to be making speeches of this kind after dinner or at any other time?

The PRIME MINISTER: I have read the speech, and I see nothing to object to.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: Did I understand the right hon. Gentleman in his original answer to say that nothing controversial at speeches at a banquet should be broadcast by the British Bread-casting Company? Is that the Government instruction; because, if so, might I ask the right hon. Gentleman, does tie think it possible that these gentlemen know what they are going to say on all occasions beforehand? Is it not hampering broadcasting in a very unreasonable manner?

The PRIME MINISTER: My hon. and gallant Friend has misunderstood me; I did not say what he alleges. What I said was that the only way to avoid the kind of complaint that has been made was to prohibit the broadcasting of such speeches.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: is that proposed?

Oral Answers to Questions — EDUCATION.

SURGICAL OPERATION, LIVERPOOL.

Mr. HAYES: 60.
asked the President of the Board of Education whether he is aware that a school medical officer of the
Liverpool education authority performed a surgical operation on a scholar named James Thomas Cheetham, aged 13, in school, without the parents' permission, using a pair of ordinary non-surgical scissors, iodoform gauze, common soap, stitching the wound with ordinary needle and sewing cotton, and that the boy died three days later; whether there has been any breach of the regulations, and, if so, to what extent; and whether, in view of the distressed circumstances of these working-class parents, mentally and financially, consideration is being given to the question of a generous grant from public funds?

Sir JOHN PENNEFATHER: 65.
asked the President of the Board of Education if his attention has been called to a case in Liverpool where a boy of 13 died three days after a school medical officer had performed an operation upon him in the school; if so, has he inquired or will he inquire whether the death of this boy can be attributed to the operation; and, in that case, whether his Department assumes responsibility for the payment of proper compensation to the parents?

The PRESIDENT of the BOARD of EDUCATION (Lord Eustace Percy): I am aware of the occurrence referred to, which I deeply deplore. At the coroner's inquest the jury, after hearing the medical evidence, found that the boy's death was due to septicemia from a wound on the finger, and was in no way connected with the operation. The performance of this operation appears to have been a contravention of the local authority's instructions to their school medical officers and of the practice of the school medical service.

Mr. HAYES: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman how far the responsibility of the local education authority stands in respect of the operation that was performed on this child during the time he was under the control of the education committee?

Lord E. PERCY: I do not know whether the hon. Member is referring to legal responsibility or moral responsibility, but I cannot give a legal opinion on that matter.

Mr. HAYES: If there is no legal responsibility, and even if there is, would it not be far handsomer if this
matter could be approached in the ex gratia spirit of a grant, and may I ask the right hon. Gentleman how far he will undertake to inquire into this matter, and to see whether an ex gratiagrant can be made from public funds?

Lord E. PERCY: So far as I am concerned, I have no power, I am advised, to make any grant. I must leave the other matter to the local authority.

Mr. HAYES: If the Noble Lord has no power to make any grant, may I ask if he will do his very utmost to make representations to the local education authority, which, I am sure, if representations were received from him, would give consideration to this question in a very generous manner, if the Noble Lord allowed them to do so?

Lord E. PERCY: I really think this is a matter that I must leave to the local education authority, who are as much impressed with the importance of the matter as I am.

Mr. HAYES: May I ask the President of the Board whether, in the event of the local education authority giving generous consideration to this matter, he will approve of their policy?

Mr. SPEAKER: That is a hypothetical question

INFANTS.

Mr. DUFF COOPER: 62.
asked the President of the Board of Education whether, in any suggestions made by the Board to local education authorities, the admission of children under five years of age to public elementary schools will be definitely encouraged in necessitous areas?

Lord E. PERCY: This is a matter which the Board has always left to the discretion of local authorities, and I do not think that the Board should interfere with that discretion.

Mr. H. WILLIAMS: 63.
asked the President of the Board of Education if his attention has been drawn to the practice in the United States of refusing to compel children under seven to attend school and to use the money saved in this way to extend educational facilities to those over 14, and if he is prepared to adopt the same policy; and if he can state the percentages of the population in the age
groups five to seven and 14 to 16 which attend school here and in the United States?

Lord E. PERCY: I am aware that in the United States compulsory attendance at school both begins and ends at a later age than in England and Wales. Strictly comparable figures between England and Wales and the United States are not available. On the basis of the 1921 census of the United Kingdom about 85 per cent. of the child population in the age-group five to seven, and about 17 per cent. of those in the age-group 14 to 16, were attending State-aided schools and institutions in England and Wales in the school year in which the census was taken. In the case of the United States the corresponding percentages were, on the basis of the United States census of 1920, about 41 and 80, respectively.

TERRITORIAL WATERS (THREE MILE LIMIT).

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: 58.
asked the Secretary of State far Foreign Affairs what is the present position with regard to the three-mile limit off the coasts of certain foreign countries beyond which deep-sea fishing is permitted to all nations; and what is being done to resist the claims of Norway, Iceland, and other countries to extend this limit as agreed by International Convention?

The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Mr. Godfrey Locker-Lampson): The limit of territorial waters is a matter not of International Convention but of International Law. His Majesty's Government adhere as heretofore to the rule that the limit of territorial waters is a line drawn three miles from the coast at low-water mark, and will continue to resist any claim to an extension of that limit. The three-mile limit applies for fisheries as for all other purposes.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: Now that the hon. Gentleman is at the Foreign Office, will he pay particular attention to this matter, as it affects the interests of the deep-sea fishermen of this country?

DEVONPORT DOCKYARD.

Mr. HORE-BELISHA: 49.
asked the Prime Minister whet her he is aware that large numbers of men are in the process of being transferred to Devon-port from the closed dockyards at Pembroke and Rosyth, and that 300 have already arrived; that no satisfactory accommodation can be found for these men owing to the housing shortage in the borough, where there is a waiting list of over 3,000 for the council houses, although the list has been closed for a considerable time; that some of those men who have succeeded in obtaining accommodation have had, in some cases, to contract to pay as much as between 17s. 6d. and 25s. a week for one room to accommodate a whole family; that there are already over 5,000 unemployed in the borough; and that the new arrivals are to replace men who have already work in the dockyard; whether, in view of the anxiety, distress, and disorganisation that is already prevalent in the borough, he can withhold instructions to send any further batches of men into the town; whether he can make any special arrangements to utilise barracks, naval or military encampments, or other accommodation in the possession of the Government to house the men already sent; whether the Government can take in hand immediately the provision of special housing accommodation and work to absorb the unemployed; and whether he is prepared to receive a deputation from the town council?

The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the ADMIRALTY (Mr. Davidson): I have been asked to reply. The larger problem of housing at Devonport is one which concerns the local authority in the first instance. The number of dockyard men still to be moved from Pembroke and Rosyth is not large, and we are not able to postpone their transfer beyond the time already fixed. But the Admiralty are investigating all possible schemes for affording some temporary accommodation for the newcomers.

Mr. HORE-BELISHA: May I ask the Prime Minister, to whom I addressed this question, whether he is aware that this is a matter which concerns three Government Departments, namely, the Ministry of Labour, the Ministry of Health, and the Admiralty, and that it is impossible to get any satisfaction if
one is referred from one Department to another and will he answer the last part of the question as to whether he will receive a deputation?

The PRIME MINISTER: I will answer that in the negative.

Mr. HORE-BELISHA: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that it is impossible for the local authority to provide houses for these people, who are being poured into the town by the Government, and whether, seeing that he is always so ready to express his sympathy with those who suffer from bad housing conditions, the Government can do nothing to remedy this congestion, which they have caused?

Major Sir BERTRAM FALLE: May I ask the Parliamentary Secretary to the Admiralty if it is not possible for him to speak to his right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for War, so that some of the barracks, at Portsmouth especially, which arc now empty, and in the hands of caretakers, can he given over to these people?

Mr. SPEAKER: The question on the Paper applies to Devonport.

Mr. HORE-BELISHA: I beg to give notice that at the first opportunity I will raise this matter on the Motion for the Adjournment.

Mr. HORE-BELISHA: 59.
asked the First Lord of the Admiralty, with reference to the net reductions in the establishment of His Majesty's Dockyard, Devonport, between November, 1924, and February, 1926, and to the number of men who are now under notice of discharge from that dockyard, whether he can hold out any hope that there will be an increase in the establishment, seeing that there is an influx of personnel from Rosyth into the town, and that, if no increase of personnel is made in the establishment, the unemployment problem in Devonport will become even greater than it is?

Mr. DAVIDSON: If the hon. Member refers to numbers on the established list. I would refer him to my reply of the 17th Mach (OFFICIAL REPORT, column 403–4). If he refers to the total number of men employed, he will be pleased to know that the number to be employed at Devonport will be considerably greater,
owing to the transfers from Rosyth and Pembroke Dock, than would otherwise have been the case.

Mr. HORE-BELISHA: Can the hon. Gentleman assure me that no men will be discharged as a result of the influx of personnel from Rosyth and Pembroke?

Mr. DAVIDSON: No, I cannot give that assurance.

NATIONAL INSURANCE (APPROVED SOCIETIES SURPLUSES).

Sir F. HALL: 51.
asked the Minister of Health whether, seeing that approved societies under the National Health Insurance Act are required, after disbursing fixed benefits, to devote any surplus in the grant of additional benefits, he will state What is now the amount of the undistributed surpluses of approved societies?

Sir K. WOOD: On the closest estimate of which the conditions permit, the aggregate amount of the surpluses at 31st December, 1925, is computed to be about £ 65,000,000. I may point out that a society is only allowed to apply to the provision of additional benefits such part of its surplus as is certified by the valuer to be disposable.

Sir F. HALL: Has any part of that amount of £ 65,000,000 to which the hon. Gentleman has referred been certified as at his disposal?

Sir K. WOOD: There may be cases, but I do not think the whole of the valuation is yet completed.

UNEMPLOYMENT (STATISTICS).

Mr. MARCH: 50.
asked the Minister of Labour if he can give an analysis of unemployment statistics for 23rd February, 1925, similar to that given for 22nd February, 1926, in the March issue of the Ministry of Labour Gazette?

The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the MINISTRY of LABOUR (Mr. Betterton): The analysis given for February, 1920, was based on a new series of returns instituted this year. The material is not available for a corresponding analysis for February, 1925.

JURY SERVICE, ENFIELD.

Colonel APPLIN: 57.
asked the Attorney-General whether he is aware that jurymen have been called three times in two years in, Enfield, and that the under-sheriff has refused to excuse a business man so called, although he pointed this out and pleaded age and pressure of business owing to the absence of his colleagues; and if he will take the necessary steps to insure that in future previous service on juries is considered when issuing summons?

The SECRETARY of STATE for the HOME DEPARTMENT (Sir William Joynson-Hicks): I have been asked to reply to this question. I am informed by the Under-Sheriff that no juryman has been summoned in respect of any one address in Middlesex and required to attend the Court for jury service more than once in a calendar year and that the persons qualified are summoned in rotation. In view of the number of persons qualified for jury service, excusals cannot be granted except upon the strongest grounds. I should like to add that if my hon. and gallant Friend will give me any particular case, I will certainly inquire into it.

PSYCHO-ANALYSIS.

Captain FAIRFAX: 67.
asked the Secretary of State for the. Home Department on what grounds, and to what extent, he has sanctioned the practice of subjecting juvenile offenders to experimenters in psycho-analysis; and what precautions he is taking against any possibly dangerous results?

Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: My hon. and gallant Friend will be pleased to know that I have not sanctioned any such experiments, nor have I any intention of doing so. I may add that the question whether any further provision should be made for the medical examination of young offenders, which is a very different matter, is being considered by the Committee now inquiring into the treatment of young offenders.

TWO-SEATER TAXICABS.

Mr. R. MORRISON: 68.
asked the Home Secretary whether he has received
any communication from the London Traffic Advisory Committee with reference to the effect upon London traffic congestion of the proposed licensing of two-seater taximeter-cabs; and if he will indicate the nature of his reply?

Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: The London and Home Counties Traffic Advisory Committee, which was consulted by the Ministry of Transport, recommended that before two-seaters were licensed, powers should be sought in order to enable me to limit the number of taxicabs and taxicab drivers. It appeared to me, however, that any proposal to limit the number of these vehicles, which are in quite a different position from omnibuses plying on fixed routes, is beset with very great difficulties and open to many objections, and I did not, therefore, find it possible to accept this advice.

Mr. MORRISON: May I take it then that the right hon. Gentleman refuses to take action in this matter without any considerable amount of consideration for the London Traffic Advisory Committee, who are charged with the responsibility of endeavouring to avoid further congestion?

Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: The Home Secretary is charged with the responsibility of issuing licences for taxicabs, and neither the Home Secretary, the London Traffic Advisory Committee, nor anybody else has any power to limit the number of those licences, and I do not propose to ask Parliament to give me that power, because I do not believe it is desirable in the interests either of the taxicab drivers, the men who may desire to drive, or of the general public.

Mr. MORRISON: What steps is the right hon. Gentleman taking in order to see that before licensing additional two-seater taxicabs, there are ranks for them to occupy?

Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: The police are always seeing where they can get new ranks, and new ranks are frequently being instituted, and they will be instituted as far as possible to meet the requirements of the taxicabs in London.

Mr. NAYLOR: Have any representations been made to the right hon. Gentleman by the London Traffic Advisory Committee?

Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: As the hon. Gentleman would have heard if he had done me the honour of listening to my reply, I have had the recommendations of the London Traffic Advisory Committee, and with the deepest respect I regret I have been unable to accept their advice.

IRON AND STEEL INDUSTRY.

Mr. DENNISON: 50.
asked the Prime Minister what is the index selling price of iron and steel compared with the average index figure for all manufactured commodities; the percentage on pre-War wages of the workpeople engaged in the heavy section of the steel trade; the amount of imported iron and steel during the past 12 months; and, if it was manufactured in this country, how many work-people the imported tonnage would employ, as well as the additional coal which would be consumed in the manufacture of the imported iron and steel?

Mr. SAMUEL: I have been asked to reply. The answer is long, and includes a table of figures. Accordingly, with the hon. Member's permission, it will be circulated in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Mr. DENNISON: In view of the importance of this question, and in view of the deplorable condition of the industry, is not the House entitled to know what the Government propose to do to help to revive it?

Following is the reply:

The index number of wholesale prices of iron and steel compared with the index number for all commodities as calculated by the Board of Trade, was as follows, the figures comparing in each ease with 100 for the year 1913:

Iron and Steel.
All Commodities. 


Average for year 1925
…
125.9
159.7


January, 1926
…
118.4
151.2


February, 1926
…
118.0
148.8

The increases in rates of wages since July, 1914, as indicated by the district percentages added to basic rates under the principal sliding-scale agreements in the iron and steel industry vary from about 13 per cent. to about 70 per cent. in different occupations and districts.

The net imports (i.e., total imports less re-exports) of iron and steel and manufactures thereof during the year 1925 amounted to 2,712,271 tons valued at £ 23,756,785.

With reference to the numbers of work-people and the amount of coal that would be required if 2,700,000 tons of iron and steel products were added to the actual output of 1925, I regret that sufficient information is not available to enable me to make a satisfactory estimate. The quantity of coal needed would probably be between seven and 10 million tons.

FOREIGN ROAD MATERIALS.

Sir ROBERT GOWER: 53.
asked the President of the Board of Trade the value of foreign road-stone setts and kerb imparted into this country during the past year?

Mr. SAMUEL: The declared value of these imports was £ 479,236.

Sir R. GOWER: 73.
asked the Minister of Transport the value of foreign road-stone setts and kerb used in the construction and repairing of British roads during the past year; and whether he will state, having regard to the large number of skilled and unskilled quarry workers unemployed in this country through lack of orders, why British road-stone setts and kerb have not been used?

The MINISTER of TRANSPORT (Colonel Ashley): Although no exact figures are available, I should estimate the value of foreign road-stone setts and kerb used in the construction and repairing of British roads during the past year as between £ 600,000 and £ 700,000. Every endeavour is made by my Department to encourage the use of British materials, but only a portion of the work of the highway authorities comes under my review. As regards road-stone, the tonnage of imported materials represents less than one-sixtieth part of the total consumption of road-stone in Great Britain. My hon. Friend will realise that some parts of the country are so placed as to enable water-borne materials from abroad to compete favourably with British products.

Sir COOPER RAWSON: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that last year 248,000 tons of foreign roadstone were imported into this country, and that many
men in the quarry industry are out of work, in spite of the fact that there are many thousands of tons of home-produced material available for the use of our own roads? [An HON. MEMBER:" At what price?"] At less price sometimes than foreign materials.

Colonel ASHLEY: My hon. Friend must be aware that the Government does all it can to encourage the use of British 'materials. Circulars have been issued to local authorities urging them to give preference to British material in all cases where possible.

Sir C. RAWSON: May I ask if it is the ease that the Ministry have issued instructions only with regard to work in connection with unemployment, but not in connection with other work?

Colonel ASHLEY: My hon. Friend is misinformed.

Sir C. RAWSON: No.

Colonel ASHLEY: As regards any work done by the Unemployment Grants Committee, all material used must be British. In the case of ordinary grants, we urge that, wherever possible, preference should be given to British material.

Sir C. RAWSON: Will the right hon. Gentleman do more than urge? Will he introduce legislation to make it compulsory?

Mr. BASIL PETO: Will the right hon. Gentleman consider doing something more than advising local authorities in cases where grants are made by his Department? Will he in future specify that where these grants are made by his Department to local authorities, only British material shall be used?

Colonel ASHLEY: Where the responsibility for the work rests with a local authority, the ultimate responsibility must rest with them.

SIERRA LEONE (RAILWAY WORKERS' DISPUTE).

Mr. LANSBURY: 13.
asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies if he is aware that the Sierra Leone railway strikers, on the faith of the Governor's proclamation embodying the statements
contained in a letter from the Secretary of State, dated 20th February, presented themselves to work; that one of the conditions laid down by the Governor was that if the men returned their case would be sympathetically dealt with, and that the men who returned immediately would be allowed to keep their positions; that when the men did present themselves for work 200 were excluded and dismissed, owing to their known sympathy and membership of the trade union; and whether he will order a special inquiry by an impartial investigator into all the circumstances which have brought about this condition of affairs and present the same to this House?

Mr. AMERY: I am aware that the Governor intimated to the strikers that if they returned to work within a stipulated time their cases would he reconsidered later. But this did not apply to men who for specially bad conduct had been dismissed the service in the earlier stages of the strike. These, of whom 37 only were on pensionable terms, the others being on daily employment and their posts being already filled, were excluded on presenting themselves for work. Membership of the union was not the reason for dismissal and hundreds of members are now again in their former employment. The answer to the last part of the question is in the negative.

Mr. LANSBURY: Will the right hon. Gentleman make inquiry as to what offences these particular men committed which compelled the Governor not to allow them to be re-employed, and is he aware that all the newspaper reports contradict almost every statement the right hon. Gentleman has made in connection with this dispute?

Mr. AMERY: I are not- aware of that.

Colonel WEDGWOOD: Has the right hon. Gentleman any information as to what the specially reprehensible conduct of these 37 union men was?

Mr. AMERY: I have not it in my mind at the moment.

Mr. LANSBURY: Do I understand that the right hon. Gentleman is going to inquire what the reprehensible conduct consists of?

Mr. AMERY: If it is not contained in the Governor's full report, I will make inquiries?

GIRLS (EMPLOYMENT STATISTICS).

Mr. DUCKWORTH: 54.
asked the Minister of Labour the nature of the employment on which girls between the ages of 12 and 14 years were employed at the time of the 1921 Census, and the nature of the work on which girls between the ages of 10 and 14 years were employed at the time of the 1911 Census?

Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: I have been asked to answer this question. Our of 28,605 girls between 12 and 14 who were returned as occupied in the Census of 1921, 16,349 were returned as textile workers, 4,269 as engaged in personal service, mostly domestic, and 2,051 as engaged in the clothing trades. The rest were scattered over a number of miscellaneous occupations. The percentage was much the same at the time of the Census of 1911, but the total was 49,276. The hon. Member will find the full particulars in volume X, Part I, Table 14A, of the Census of England and Wales for 1911, aid in Table 4 of the volume entitled"Occupations" of the Census for 1921.

INTER-ALLIED DEBTS.

. Sir F. WISE: 69
asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether, as Italy has pa d the instalment of £ 2,000,000 on account of the debt owed to us, it will appear in the Finance Accounts for 1915–26?

Mr. McNEILL: The answer is in the affirmative.

WHEAT COMMISSION.

Sir F. WISE: 70.
asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he has arranged terms with France and Italy over the Wheat Commission; and, if so, what was the arrangement?

Mr. McNEILL: As regards Italy, I would refer the hon. Member to Article 5 of the Italian War Debt Agreement (Command Paper 2580), under which the Italian accounts with the Wheat Executive have been finally closed. So far as France is concerned, it has not yet been possible to close the accounts.

MOTOR VEHICLE DUTIES (APPLICATION).

. Mr. MARCH: 77
asked the Minister of Transport if he will give the text of that portion of the Minutes of Proceedings of the Departmental Committee on Motor Regulation and Taxation at the meeting held on the 5th March, 1920, which recorded the formal communication to the Committee of the undertaking given by the Chancellor of the Exchequer of the day concerning the application of the proceeds of any taxes on road-motor vehicles?

Colonel ASHLEY: The Committee referred to published a Report, but did not publish the evidence or any Minutes of Proceedings. I do not think it desirable to publish particular extracts dealing with particular subjects.

TUNIS (Mr. MACNAMARA, ARREST).

Lieut.-Colonel POWNALL (by Private Notice): asked the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he has any further news which he can give to the house in regard to Mr. Macnamara, who was arrested by the French authorities in Tunis?

Mr. LOCKER-LAMPSON: My information is that the trial has resulted in Mr. Macnamara's conviction and in the imposition of the minimum term of imprisonment, namely, two months, from which will be deducted the period of imprisonment already served. The penalty includes in addition the payment of a fine of 2,000 francs and exclusion from French territory for a term of five years. According to the report which I have received the trial was full and strictly according to local usage.

Colonel WEDGWOOD: Will the hon. Gentleman say what was his crime?

Lieut.-Colonel POWNALL: Will the hon. Gentleman make representations to the French Government that, in view of the intolerable treatment to which this young man was subjected when under remand, the balance of the term of imprisonment should be remitted?

Mr. LOCKER-LAMPSON: His Majesty's Government are now considering what further action they can
properly take in Mr. Macnamara's interests.

Colonel WEDGWOOD: What technical offence was it that he committed?

Mr. LOCKER-LAMPSON: I understand he made some observations which were resented.

Colonel WEDGWOOD: Were those observations criticisms of the French Government's action in Morocco?

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.

Motion made, and Question put,
 That, notwithstanding anything in Standing Order No. 15, the Reports of the Navy Excess, 1924– 25, and Civil Services Excesses, 1924–25, may be considered this day, and that the Proceedings on Reports of Supply of the 11th and 15th March may be taken after Eleven of the Clock, and that such Proceedings be exempted, at this day's Sitting, from the provisions of the Standing Order (Sittings of the House)."—[The Prime Minister.]

The House divided: Ayes, 232; Noes, 88.

Division No. 98.]
AYES.
[3.47 p.m.


Agg-Gardner, Rt. Hon. Sir James T.
Edmondson, Major A. J.
Kindersley, Major G. M.


Albery, Irving James
Edwards, John H. (Accrington)
King, Captain Henry Douglas


Amery, Rt. Hon. Leopold C. M. S.
Elliot, Captain Walter E.
Kinloch-Cooke, Sir Clement


Applln, Colonel R. V. K.
Elveden, Viscount
Knox, Sir Alfred


Apsley, Lord
Erskine, Lord (Somerset, Weston-s.-M.)
Lamb, J. Q.


Ashley, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Wllfrid W.
Evans, Captain A. (Cardiff, South)
Lane Fox, Col. Rt. Hon. George R.


Astor, Viscountess
Fairfax, Captain J. G.
Lister, Cunllfle-, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip


Atkinson, C.
Falle, Sir Bertram G.
Locker-Lampson. G. (Wood Green)


Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley
Falls, Sir Charles F.
Locker-Lampson, Com. O. (Handsw'th)


Balfour, George (Hampstead)
Fanshawe, Commander G. D.
Looker, Herbert William


Balniel, Lord
Fermoy, Lord
Lucas.-Tooth, Sir Hugh Vere


Barclay-Harvey, C. M.
Fielden, E. B.
Luce, Major-Gen. Sir Richard Harman


Barnett, Major Sir Richard
Forrest, W.
Lumley, L. R.


Bellairs, Commander Carlyon W.
Fraser, Captain Ian
MacAndrew, Major Charles Glen


Benn, Sir A. S. (Plymouth, Drake)
Fremantle, Lt.-Col. Francis E.
Macdonald, Capt. P. D. (I. of W.)


Betterton, Henry B.
Ganzonl, Sir John
Maclntyre, Ian


Bird, Sir R. B. (Wolverhampton, W.)
Gates, Percy.
McLean, Major A.


Blades, Sir George Rowland
Gee, Captain R.
Macnaghten, Hon. Sir Malcolm


Blundell, F. N.
Gilmour, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir John
McNeill, Rt. Hon. Ronald John


Bourne, Captain Robert Croft
Glyn. Major R. G. C.
Macquisten, F. A.


Bowater, Sir T. Vansittart
Gower, Sir Robert
Makins, Brigadier-General E.


Bowyer, Capt. G. E. W.
Grattan-Doyle, Sir N.
Malone, Major P. B.


Brass, Captain W.
Greene, W. P. Crawford
Margesson, Captain D.


Brassey, Sir Leonard
Grotrian, H. Brent
Marriott, Sir J. A. R.


Bridgeman, Rt. Hon. William Clive
Guinness, Rt. Hon. Walter E.
Meyer, Sir Frank


Briggs, J. Harold
Gunston, Captain D. W.
Milne, J. S. Wardlaw


Briscoe, Richard George
Hacking, Captain Douglas H.
Mitchell, S. (Lanark Lanark)


Brittain, Sir Harry
Hall. Lieut.-Col. Sir F. (Dulwich)
Mitchell, W. Foot (Saffron Walden)


Brocklebank, C. E. R.
Hall, Capt. W. D'A. (Brecon & Rad.)
Mitchell, Sir W. Lane (Streatham)


Brooke, Brigadier-General C. R. I.
Hanbury, C.
Moore, Lieut.-Colonel T. C. R. (Ayr)


Broun-Lindsay, Major H.
Harvey, G. (Lambeth, Kennington)
Moore, Sir Newton J.


Brown, Brig.-Gen. H.C.(Berks, Newb'y)
Harvey, Major S. E. (Devon, Totnes)
Moore-Brabazon, Lieut.-Col. J. T. C.


Bullock, Captain M.
Haslam, Henry C.
Morrison, H. (Wilts, Salisbury)


Burton Colonel H. W.
Hawke, John Anthony
Morrison-Bell, Sir Arthur Clive


Butler Sir Geoffrey
Headlam, Lieut.-Colonel C. M.
Murchison, C. K.


Campbell E. T.
Henderson, Lieut.-Col. V. L. (Bootle)
Nelson, Sir Frank


Cautley, Sir Henry S.
Heneage, Lieut.-Col- Arthur P.
Newman. Sir R. H. S. D. L. (Exeter)


Cayzer, Sir C. (Chester, City)
Henn, Sir Sydney H.
Nicholson. Col. Rt. Hon. W. G. (Ptrssf'ld.)


Cazalet, Captain Victor A.
Hennessy Major J. R. G.
Nuttall, Ellis


Cecil, Rt. Hon. Sir Evelyn (Aston)
Herbert, Dennis (Hertford, Watford)
O'Connor, T. J. (Bedford, Luton)


Chadwick, Sir Robert Burton
Herbert, S. (York, N. R., Scar. & Wh'by)
Percy, Lord Eustace (Hastings)


Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. N. (Ladywood)
Hogg, Rt. Hon. Sir D.(St. Marylebone)
Perkins, Colonel E. K.


Chapman, Sir S.
Holbrook, Sir Arthur Richard
Peto, Basil E. (Devon, Barnstaple)



Holt, Captain H. P.
Peto, G. (Somerset, Frome)


Churchill, Rt. Hon. Winston Spencer
Hope, Sir Harry (Forfar)
Pilcher, G.


Churchman, Sir Arthur C.
Hopkins, J. W. W.
Power. Sir John Cecil


Cobb, Sir Cyrll
Hopkinson, A. (Lancaster, Mossley)
Pownall, Lieut.-Colonel Assheton.


Cochrane, Commander Hon. A.D.<>
Hopkinson, Sir A. (Eng. Universities)
Rawson, Sir Alfred Cooper


Cockerill, Brigadier-General G. K.
Horlick, Lieut.-Colonel J. N.
Reid, Capt. A. S. C. (Warrington)


Conway, Sir W. Martin
Howard, Captain Hon. Donald
Reid, D. D. (County Down)


Cooper, A. Duff
Hudson, Capt. A. U. M. (Hackney, N.)
Remnant, Sir James


Cope, Major William
Hudson, R.S. (Cumberland, Whlteh'n)
Rentoul, G. S.


Cowan, Sir Wm. Henry (Islington, N.)
Hunting field, Lord
Rice, Sir Frederick


Craik, Rt. Hon. Sir Henry
Hurd. Percy A.
Richardson, Sir P. W. (Sur'y, Ch'ts'y)


Crookshank, Col. C. de W. (Berwick)
Hurst, Gerald B.
Ropner, Major L.


Crookshank, Cpt. H. (Lindsey, Gainsbro)
Hutchison, G. A. Clark (Mldl'n & P'bl's)
Ruggles-Brise, Major E. A.


Curzon, Captain Viscount
Inskip, Sir Thomas Walker H.
Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)


Davidson, J.(Hertf'd, Hemel Hempst'd)
Jackson, Lieut.-Col. Rt. Hon. F. S.
Salmon, Major I.


Davies, Dr. Vernon
Jacob, A. E.
Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham)


Davies, Maj. Geo. F. (Somerset, Yeovll)
James, Lieut.-Colonel Hon. Cuthbert
Sandeman, A. Stewart


Davison, Sir W. H. (Kensington, S.)
Jones, G. W. H. (Stoke Newington)
Sanders, Sir Robert A.


Dawson, Sir Philip
Joynson-Hicks, Rt. Hon. Sir William
Sandon, Lord


Eden, Captain Anthony
Kennedy, A. R. (Preston).
Savery, S. S.


Shaw, Capt. W. W. (Wilts, Westb'y)
Thomson, F. C. (Aberdeen, South)
Wilson, M. J. (York, N. R. Richm'd)


Sheffield, Sir Berkeley
Thomson, Rt. Hon. Sir W. Mitchell-
Wilson, R. R. (Stafford, Lichfield)


Simms, Dr, John M. (Co. Down)
Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement
Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel George


Smithers, Waldron
Vaughan-Morgan, Col. K. P.
Winterton, Rt. Hon. Earl


Sprot, Sir Alexander
Ward, Lt.-Col. A.L. (Kingston-on-Hull)
Wise, Sir Fredric


Steel, Major Samuel Strang
Warner, Brigadier-General W. W.
Wood, Sir H. K. (Woolwich, West)


Streatfeild, Captain S. R.
Waterhouse, Captain Charles
Woodcock, Colonel H. C.


Strickland, Sir Gerald
Watson, Rt. Hon. W. (Carlisle)
Worthington-Evans, Rt. Han. Sir L.


Stuart, Crichton-, Lord C.
White, Lieut.-Colonel G. Dalrymple



Stuart, Hon. J. (Moray and Nairn)
Williams, Com. C. (Devon, Torquay)
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—


Sugden, Sir Wilfrid
Williams, C. P. (Denbigh, Wrexham)
Colonel Gibbs and Major Sir Harry Barnston.


Sykes, Major-Gen. Sir Frederick H.
Williams, Herbert G. (Reading)



Thorn, Lt.-Col. J. G. (Dumbarton)
Wilson, Sir C. H. (Leeds, Central)



NOES.


Adamson, Rt. Hon. W. (Fife, West)
Henderson, T. (Glasgow)
Shaw, Rt. Hon. Thomas (Preston)


Alexander, A. V. (Sheffield, Hillsbro')
Hirst, G. H.
Short, Alfred (Wednesbury)


Ammon, Charles George
Hint, W. (Bradford, South)
Sinclair, Major Sir A. (Caithness)


Attlee, Clement Richard
Hore-Belisha, Leslie
Smith, Ben (Bermondsey, Rotherhithe)


Barker, G. (Monmouth, Abertillery)
Hutchison, Sir Robert (Montrose)
Smith, H. B. Lees- (Keighley)


Barr, J.
Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)
Smith, Rennle (Penistone)


Batey, Joseph
Jones, T. I. Mardy (Pontypridd)
Snell, Harry


Beckett, John (Gateshead)
Kelly, W. T.
Snowden, Rt. Hon. Philip


Bowerman, Rt. Hon. Charles W.
Kennedy, T.
Stamford, T. W.


Bromley, J.
Kenworthy, Lt.-Com. Hon. Joseph M.
Stephen, Campbell


Buxton, Rt. Hon. Noel
Kenyon, Barnet
Taylor, R. A.


Charleton, H. C.
Lansbury, George
Thomas, Rt. Hon. James H. (Derby)


Cluse, W. S.
Lee, F.
Thurtle, E.


Collins, Sir Godfrey (Greenock)
Lindley, F. W.
Tinker, John Joseph


Dalton, Hugh
Lunn, William
Trevelyan, Rt. Hon. C. P.


Davies, Ellis (Denbigh, Denbigh)
MacDonald, Rt. Hon. J. R. (Aberavon)
Viant, S. P.


Day, Colonel Harry
Mackinder, W.
Wallhead, Richard C.


Dennison, R.
March, S.
Walsh, Rt. Hon. Stephen


Duncan, C.
Morris, R. H.
Watts-Morgan, Lt.-Col. D. (Rhondda)


Evans, Capt. Ernest (Welsh Univer.)
Morrison, R. C. (Tottenham, N.)
Wedgwood, Rt. Hon. Joslah


Garro-Jones, Captain G. M.
Naylor, T. E.
Whiteley, W.


Gillett, George M.
Oliver, George Harold
Williams, David (Swansea, E.)


Gosling, Harry
Owen, Major G.
Williams, Dr. J. H. (Llanelly)


Graham, Rt. Hon. Wm. (Edin., Cent.)
Palln, John Henry
Wilson, C. H. (Sheffield, Attercliffe)


Grenfell, D. R. (Glamorgan)
Paling, W.
Windsor, Walter


Groves, T.
Pethick-Lawrence, F. W.
Wright, W.


Grundy, T. W.
Ponsonby, Arthur



Hamilton, Sir R. (Orkney & Shetland)
Potts, John S.
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—


Hartshorn, Rt. Hon. Vernon
Pureed, A. A.
Mr. Charles Edwards and Mr. A. Barnes.


Hayes, John Henry
Rose, Frank H.



Henderson, Rt. Hon. A. (Burniey)
Runciman, Rt. Hon. Walter



First Resolution read a Second time.

SELECTION (STANDING COMMITTEES).

STANDING COMMITTEE A.

Mr. WILLIAM NICHOLSON: reported from the Committee of Selection; That they had discharged the following Member from Standing Committee A (added in respect of the Midwives and Maternity Homes Bill): Mr. Viant; and had appointed in substitution: Miss Wilkinson.

Report to lie upon the Table

Orders of the Day — SUPPLY.

[3RD ALLOTTED DAY.]

REPORT [11TH MARCH].

Resolutions reported,

NAVY ESTIMATES, 1926–27.

1." That 102,675 Officers, Seamen, Boys, and Royal Marines be employed for the sea Service, together with 450 for the Royal Marine Police, borne on the hooks of His Majesty's Ships, at the Royal Marine Divisions, and at Royal Air Force Establishments, for the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1927."

2." That a sum, not exceeding £ 11,718,000, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the Expense of Wages, etc., of Officers and Men of the Royal Navy and Royal Marines, and Civilians employed on Fleet Services, which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1927."

3." That a sum, not exceeding £ 2,375,300, he granted to His Majesty, to defray the Expense of Works, Buildings, and Repairs, at, Homo and Abroad, including the cost of Superintendence, Purchase of Sites, Grant-in-Aid, and other Charges connected there-with, which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1927."

4." That a sum, not exceeding £4,423,200, be granted to His Majesty', to defray the Expense of Victualling and Clothing for the Navy, including the cost of Victualling Establishments at Home and Abroad which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1927."

5." That a sum, not exceeding £100, be granted to His Majesty, to make good Excesses of Navy Expenditure beyond the Grants for the year ended 31st March, 1925."

Motion made, and Question proposed," That this House doth agree with the Committee in the said Resolution."

Sir MALCOLM MACNAGHTEN: I desire to call the attention of the House to one matter of some public importance in connection with the Navy, that is, the position of the naval engineer-officers. It is rather a thorny question and one in which interest has been aroused in the last few months by an Admiralty Fleet Order issued in November. In days gone by, when engineering was but a novelty in the Navy, one could hardly expect that engineer-officers would be
accorded the same position as those who were the heirs of the traditions of the Navy, but, as time went by, it was recognised that their position ought to be improved, and as long ago as 1902 or 1903 a scheme, devised under the guidance of Lord Selborne and Lord Fisher, provided for the common entry into the Navy of officers who were going to serve both on deck and in the engine room. That scheme provided that a man might be an engineer-officer and, in course of time, change over and take command of the ship. It was found by experience that that did not work, and by 1922 the Board of Admiralty had come to the fixed and unalterable decision that those officers who specialised in engineering must remain in that branch of the Service, and forgo all chance of obtaining executive command of a ship.
With that decision, made in 1922, no one, as far as I know, quarrels. It is recognised that the duties which devolve upon the engineer-officer are of such an exacting character and specialisation is so great, that it is impossible for a man who has specialised in engineering to fit himself to take executive command. But when, in 1922, the Admiralty came to that decision, they came at the same time to the decision that those who enter through Dartmouth must at that time select whether they will specialise in engineering or in the executive branch, and they decided that those who elected to specialise in engineering should be treated as belonging to the military branch of the service, and both as to rank, as to uniform, as to status, and as to position, should be on an equality in the eyes of all men, including the Board of Admiralty, with those who were in the executive branch of the service. That was the decision arrived at in 1922, and on the faith of it there is no doubt that a number of cadets at Dartmouth have elected to specialise in engineering and forgo all right to the command of ships in the future. The promise was made to them that they should remain in the military branch and should continue to enjoy the status so accorded to them. Unfortunately, as it seems to most people, in November last the Board of Admiralty came to another decision.
They decided to abolish the military branch of the service altogether, and instead of having a military branch, they
4.0 P.M.
established an executive category and an engineering category, so that those who had elected to specialise in engineering and who had been promised that they should remain in the military branch found themselves put into a new and separate category called the engineering category, and, what to some of them at any rate seems worse, not only are they put into a separate category, but they have to mark themselves out in a distinct manner by wearing a purple stripe on their sleeves. Up to that time, they were allowed to wear a uniform similar to that of the executive officer, and anybody, I suppose, can appreciate what an honour it is to be able to wear the historic uniform of an officer of the Navy. Under this recent order, they have got to wear the purple stripe, and for the purpose, I suppose, of rubbing it in the Fleet Order says that they have got to wear a stripe very purple. It appears that the Admiralty tailors have been rather apt to take a delicate shade of purple which might possibly he mistaken for blue, but the Admiralty Order of November was going to put an end to that, and it was to be purple and plainly purple, so that there could be no mistake about it.
My right hon. Friend the First Lord of the Admiralty has said that he would be proud to wear a purple stripe. I am sure that any of us would be proud to wear a naval uniform of any sort, but the question is: Would not he be prouder to wear the naval uniform without the purple stripe? Anyhow, if that be the view of the engineer officers, why not gratify their whim or fancy? What is the object of putting upon them something which they dislike and which they regard as a disparagement? I know perfectly well that my right hon. Friend has not the smallest desire either to disparage or to discredit the naval engineer officer. I am sure he in most anxious to attract to the service the best class of young men, and I would put it to him whether it is not even row possible to go back upon what seems to me the unhappy decision of last November, restore the engineer officers to the military branch, and allow them to continue To wear the uniform which has been theirs since 1922. I believe, if only he will con-
sent to adopt that course, he will find that the agitation which has been aroused, I think throughout the whole of the engineering profession in the country, will abate, and that he will attract, as I know he desires to attract, the best class of young men to the service of His Majesty's Navy.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: am sorry that I cannot agree with the whole of the views put forward by the hon Member for Londonderry (Sir N. Macnaghten). I think they are based very largely on a misapprehension. I remember the whole of this controversy from the day of its beginning, because it only started when Lord Fisher became First Sea Lord and introduced revolutionary changes in the Navy, many of which have had to he reversed. This was only one of them. His attempt was to create a common system of entry and training for all the so-called executive branches of the Navy, among which he included the engineering branch. Step by steps this scheme had to be abandoned. A great part of it was never put into force. The common training right through was found quite impractical. With the growing complexity of the materiel, with the growing power of the engines, with the great use of electricity, with the great complexity of the hydraulic and other machinery on the ships, it was found necessary to specialise these officers in the junior ranks, and once specialised they had to remain specialised. Lord Fisher's dream remained only a dream with him, and a few outside busybodies, among whom I do not include the hon. Member for Londonderry, who are continually agitating on this subject.
Lord Fisher's conceptions were many of them mistaken, and this was one of them. He did not throw sufficient weight on the side of war and on the study and practice of tactics, and he put far too much weight on the material side of the profession, and he suffered from this fact. The training of a, naval officer is becoming more complicated. The introduction of flying involving the necessity of officers having a knowledge of aviation and aeronautics has added a new subject since Lord Fisher's conception, and it has been found impossible, on the one hand, to make a. good engineer and on
the other a good sea officer and tactician. It is said that great strategists are born. It has also been said that great engineers are born. This I do know, and the First Lord will bear me out from his observations already: The training required to make a good engineer and the mentality required to make a great engineer are different from the training required to make a good admiral and from the mentality required to make a. great strategist. Therefore, the Admiralty are right in going back to the separation of the two branches, and I think that has bean the experience of the War.
The engineer officers, first of all, wished to have the executive curl, and, in granting that, I always thought the Admiralty were right. Engineer officers have the right now to sit on courts-martial, and the only difference is that they do not rise to command of ships. On the vessel it self, they are not eligible for navigating work or for the strategic work of the Fleet. I think the Admiralty are perfectly right in that matter. It is the life work of the cleverest man you can produce to master the technicalities of marine engineering. A special type of mentality is needed for a great engineer and a different type for a great strategist. As for producing great strategists, great leaders at sea and great Sea Admirals, well, yen can only train a great many and hope that you may have the luck to find one here and there born with these rare qualities and who has the good fortune to serve with officers who appreciate him. That is the only chance of getting a great Sea Admiral. We hear no agitation on behalf of the medical branch because they wear a red stripe or on behalf of the accountant and paymaster branch because they have to wear a white stripe. Yet all these officers run the same risk on board a man-of-war. They all do combatant work at sea. Accountant officers work, control decks in action or even occasionally spot from aloft in action. There is no question of any slight on these excellent officers, and I am quite certain that neither the Admiralty nor anyone among the senior ranks in the Navy has any intention of belittling the status or value of the excellent service we have always received from engineer officers.
I wish to deal for a moment or two with a parallel question, and I hope I
may have the support of the hon. Member. I wish to see the Officer Branch of the Navy democratised all the way through. I do not want these unnecessary and artificial—I do not like to call them privileges—but theoretical duties placed on the engineer officers of the Navy. I wish every boy of talent to have the opportunity of entering the executive or engineering branches of the Navy, and not to be debarred by the lack of means of his parents. I consider that the Admiralty should democratise the Navy in that respect. They have refused the marriage allowance to officers let the sons of officers pass through the training establishment without charging them fees. By so doing the Admiralty will open the doors to the sons of poor men who may be admirably fitted for the Navy, but who are now debarred by lack of means. The poor officer to-day cannot afford to put his sons through these training establishments. He must have substantial private means before he can pass his boy through Dartmouth. I think this is very wrong. If in the American and Japanese navies, against the officer corps of which I have never heard any suggestions of inefficiency, there are no fees charged at all, and any poor Japanese or American boy, if he has the talent, can pass through the respective training establishments, then that ought to be the case in this country with regard to our own Navy.
Another step in this direction would be to increase the number of special entry cadets. We had experience some years before the war and during the war of the so-called public school cadets, and compared with the boys who came from Osborne and Dartmouth they did extremely well after they had been at sea for six months. I think the Admiralty would be well advised carefully to reconsider their method of training officers. I rather think that the early entry age might be abandoned with some other of Lord Fisher's revolutionary changes. Some of those changes were good, and some have been proved by experience not to be good, I believe that we should get better value by raising the age of entry and having a larger proportion of special entry cadets. At the present time, the country is paying for the training of young boys in the ordinary school curriculum which could be well done in the great public and grammar schools.
A great deal too much money is being spent at Osborne on the boys being given a fine culture and training which could be given equally well at school. The length and cost of this training debars boys who might prove fine material through the lack of means of their parents and through lack of opportunity. I throw out this suggestion to the right hon. Gentleman, because I cannot do other than raise it as a suggestion. It is not a matter than can be fought on the Floor of the House, but I do hope that it will receive his sympathetic consideration.

Mr. AMMON: I want to raise one or two points concerning the engineer officers arid executive officers. This question was brought before the Admiralty about two years ago, and then it was not so much a question of a distinctive stripe as the fact that the engineer officers felt it was looked upon as a badge of inferiority. With all due deference to the professional knowledge of the hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for Central Hull (Lieut.-Commander Ken-worthy), I would like to say that it is not quite the same position between the two classes of officers mentioned by him. Owing to the increase in the use of mechanism on battleships, the engineer officer has become an increasingly more important person. The position was that they should have the right to reach executive rank, and rank with the ordinary naval officer. I was under die impression that, about two years ago, something like a satisfactory agreement was arrived at which met with acceptance from the engineer officers, and I believe it was left to be put into operation when the last Government resigned office. I would like to ask what has happened to alter this position. As far as my memory serves me, the difficulty did not arise from the interference of busybodies outside, but from the engineer officers themselves, who felt that their position was becoming more and more important in the Navy, and that they were filling an increasingly important part, which was bound to grow with the passage of time. They were under the impression, rightly or wrongly, that it was a question of social position. They were not drawn from the same strata of society, because the
engineer officer came in with a training as a mechanic outside, and, therefore, was not drawn from quite the same rank as the executive officer. The engineer officer was under the impression, because of that, that a certain social stigma remained and that social snobbery was at the bottom of it all. That kind of thing operates to the disadvantage of the Navy and ought to be swept aside.
What I require information about is what has happened since that time I think an agreement was accepted whereby some of these officers could rise to executive rank. The question was discussed, and I thought there was some measure of agreement. With regard to the other point raised by the hon. and gallant member for Central Hull there was also some agreement and some memoranda drafted with a view to democratising the officer ranks of the Navy, and there were questions considered as to whether it would be possible to make an opening for lads from the ordinary public and secondary schools to supply the material to make officers. After all, we have splendid material in all ranks of society and they should not be allowed to suffer from any social stigma in this respect. The Labour Government left certain recommendations and suggestions for their successors to carry out, and I would like the First Lord to give us some information with regard to that point I should also like some more information in regard to the increase in the personnel of the Navy. Is this due to the manning of the new ships which have been laid down, or have people been transferred from the ships which have been scrapped in order to make up this slight increase? What has been done in regard to manning the ships and has there been any depletion of the service by the scrapping of certain ships which have lately been put out of commission?

Major Sir BERTRAM FALLE: The hon. and gallant Member for Central Hull (Lieut. - Commander Kenworthy) has been devoting himself to" laying out" the late Lord Fisher. I know that Lord Fisher was generally supposed to have had very little help during his career, but he was considered to be the very finest power connected with our
Navy. I am aware that the hon. and gallant Member has very small consideration for him.

Lieut. - Commander KENWORTHY: I cannot allow that statement to pass. I have the greatest respect for the tremendous ability and high professional standard adopted by Lord Fisher, but that was not the point. My point was that he made mistakes like other people.

Sir B. FALLE: The hon. and gallant Member seemed to deal only with his mistakes.

Lieut. - Commander KENWORTHY: Good wine needs no bush.

Sir B. FALLE: We all know that those who do not make mistakes do not make anything. If I chose to be on the side of the angels I should much prefer to be with Lord Fisher in this matter rather than with the hon. and gallant Gentleman. Lord Fisher was a man of worldwide reputation and knowledge, and I would rather find myself in agreement with him than with the hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for Central Hull. Be did much for the engineer officer, but the point is that the engineer officer has agreed that he does not want to command a ship, and that that particular part of the naval officer's duties shall not be his, but what he wants particularly is to be delivered from this stripe. Until recently the position occupied by the engineer officer and officer E was of military branch given to him as reward for service during the War. That cannot be too much emphasised, and it is a mistake to compare him with the medical branch or accountant branch. What he feels is the taking away of that right and giving him the purple stripe of a Particular description. Every day the position of the engineer officer is increasing in importance. I see that Italy is laying down a battleship of 150,000 horse-power, and we are going to give command below deck to an engineer officer who must be of inferior social status. [HON. MEMBERS:" No !"] It is easy to say no, but that is what they feel. They had the status of military officers and it has now been taken away from them. It is not correct to say they agreed to this, as was stated by the hon. Member for North Camberwell (Mr. Ammon). They did not accept the conditions of the Admiralty. What
happened was that those conditions were forced upon them. There is all the difference in the world between a condition which you accept and one which you find, after many years' service, you have either to accept or clear out ! This distinction remains with the individual all his life, but it does not remain with the bluejacket who is competent, and rises to be a mate. He is not labelled through life as coming from the lower deck and that is why engineers object in regard to the social side of their profession. They think this fact is of great importance. They do not ask for command of the ships, but they do ask that there should continue to be common entry and that they should belong to the military branch. I should be very much obliged if the First Lord would make that point clear. While the present Government lasts I hope there will be common entry for the officers of His Majesty's Navy. I saw the other day that the First Lord warned the public against thinking that the Navy is obsolete, and I should like to warn him against making the Navy a profession that no able man will willingly join. If we reach that point we shall have very able and competent men on the quarter deck and the lower deck, but below where the order is given to go into action or if necessary to keep out of range of the enemy then we shall have an inferior set of men looking after the engines, and in that case we do not know what might happen.
Another point I wish to raise is in regard to the engine-room artificers, which is a very important branch of the Service. It has been in existence for 57 years. Up to the year 1925 engine-room artificers have been taken on as boys after passing a stiff examination, and at 15 they enter training establishments. They enter those establishments, and they are waited on by civilians, ex-chief petty officers and petty officers. The boys are very proud of their profession, and they were given the right of wearing brass buttons. If hon. Members take themselves back to the age of 15, they will agree with me that at that age those little matters weigh very heavily with the boys and their parents. As I have said, they used to be waited upon by men who were chief petty officers, etc. When they left the training establishments they were made chief petty officers, but they are now made petty officers only and their braes buttons
are taken away from them and they are given horn buttons. I know when this point was mentioned a number of hon. Members opposite raised a laugh, but it is no laughing matter. These boys are going to be made a lower grade. Not only this, but every man in the engineer ranks feels that a slight is being put upon him because he feels that his profession has been lowered as well as his social status.

Mr. KELLY: What about economy?

Sir B. FALLE: There is no economy in it. Even if there were a saving of so many thousand pounds, I would still say that it must be done. You do not, however, save a copper, but only injure a great profession. I may say that there are 55 engineer-lieutenants in His Majesty's Navy, and 42 of these are old engine-room artificers. There are 172 engineer-commanders in the engineering branch of the Navy, and of these 169 are taken from the engine-room artificers. There remain, therefore, only 13 engineer-lieutenants and only three engineer-commanders who were taken from the whole Navy. The matter is a little difficult to understand, because there are both engineer officers and officers (E), but that is, of course, a technical point, though I admit it is a little troublesome to some to follow. There are four commanders (E), 44 lieutenant-commanders (E), and 42 midshipmen (E), and all of these, of course, have been promised certain definite things, which are now going to be taken from them.
Although anyone who desires to serve His Majesty in any capacity may not be able to make a contract, there is such a thing as an honourable interpretation of an engagement, and it ought not to be changed during that engagement. If an arrangement were made to reduce try salary by £200 a year, although, frankly, I do not absolutely need the money, I should make the very devil of a fuss. I was opposed to the grant, and I am opposed still to it. I was opposed to the granting of a railway ticket to a Member's constituency, but I should not like to have mine taken away from me now, unless it were taken away from the whole House, and then I would gladly vote for it. I hope that these matters in connection with engineer officers will be very
seriously considered by my right hon. Friend. I am quite sure that, if he gives his mind to it, the grievance will be remedied. Of course, however, I am perfectly well aware that the head of any great Department must necessarily be in the hands of his advisers, and a great part of the Navy is, I will not say opposed—I should, of course, be wrong in using that word—but they are not all altogether in favour of the engineering department, and, therefore., it is the duty, as I am quite sure it will be the pleasure, of my right hon. Friend, if he looks into this matter, to see that these men's legitimate grievances are looked into.
The same thing applies also to a very honourable body of men who have risen from the lower deck, and are called Mates. It is an exceedingly difficult business to rise to the position of mate. As the House knows, the boys are taken at the age of 15 and are trained, and at the age of 18 they are entered in the Navy as men. If they pass a high educational test, and if they are recommended by their captains, they go before a selection board, and if that selection board accepts them—and it does not base its acceptance on the ground of a candidate's being first in the examination or of his educational ability—if they are selected, then they are made, for 12 months, acting mates. At the end of 12 months their rank is confirmed, and at the end of two years they are made lieutenants in His Majesty's. Navy. Then they know that, if they serve as lieutenants for eight years, they are bound to become lieutenant-commanders.
There is no question that anyone who wants to succeed in the Navy must specialise, whether in gunnery, navigation, torpedoes, or something of that kind. My "grouse" is this: I should not like to say that these men are not allowed to specialise, but the fact is that, out of the whole number of them in the Service at the present time, there is, I believe, only one who specialises, and be specialises as a surveyor! The consequence is that these gentlemen, who have worked very hard to take themselves out of the ranks in which they found themselves to begin with, are absolutely blocked; they cannot, anyhow, rise beyond the rank of
commander, and it is very difficult for them to rise even to that point. I think that that ought to be changed, and, if I might venture to suggest the way in which it should be changed, it would be that the whole system of mates should be done away with, and that he best boys, taken from Greenwich or elsewhere at the age of 15, should be allowed to go for a period to Dartmouth, and pass under the common entry system. We do that in the Army. A statement was made the other day about a young officer who entered through the ranks, and, after three years, sat for the necessary examinations and swept the board. That man, in the Navy, might have got his captain's recommendation, he might have passed the Selection Board, he might have been made a lieutenant, he might, with the ability of Lord Fisher himself, have been made a lieut-commander after eight years; but then he would have been shut out. The boys who work up in this way are the boys who will make the Navy of the future, and I cannot impress that fact too strongly upon my right hon. Friend.
There is only one other point, and have finished. It is that the men who are invalided out of the Navy should be given an appeal board. I was a medical student myself, and have been for 30 years, and I say it is absolutely wrong that any doctor who says," Your eyesight is wrong," or" Your hearing is wrong," or" You have this or that complaint," should be the one authority to put a man out. A friend of mine—he was in the Army, I admit, so the case is not quite the same—is suffering from tuberculosis. He was sent to Arosa, and he got comparatively well there, but he returned in the summer because he was utterly bored with the life up there. He returned from Arosa, and the doctor here will not send him back there, but tells him he is just as well where he is. It is no more use trying to move that doctor than it would be to try to push down the Nelson Column with your shoulder. He has never been to Arosa in his life, and thinks the air of Brighton is just as good as it, is at Arosa, 6,000 feet up. That man is now slowly dying, because he is obliged to remain in this climate with the wind that is now blowing.
That is utterly wrong; there ought to be an appeal board for every invalided officer or man. My right hon. Friend
told me the other day that 53 officers were invalided from the Navy last year for tuberculosis alone, and in only five of those 53 cases was the disease held to be" attributable" to service in the Navy. There were also 217 men invalided out for tuberculosis alone. Now, the physical standard of the Navy is higher than in any other profession whatever. You must not have flat feet, you must not have the smallest trouble with either eye, your chest measurement must be magnificent, and you must be able to blow it out to a tremendous extent; and yet there were 217 men invalided out of the Navy last year for tuberculosis alone. They had been passed within the last few years as absolutely super-fit, and yet, in how many cases was the disease held to be attributable to their service? Only three!

Mr. SPEAKER: I do not think that that comes within this Vote.

Sir B. FALLE: Of course, I bow to your ruling instantly, but my point is that it is the Admiralty which settles this matter. I do not want to bring in the medical branch at all; it is the headquarters that decide these matters. I do not even want a medical board; I am quite prepared to have a civil board—a board—

Mr. SPEAKER: That comes on Vote 12, the Admiralty Vote, not on Vote A.

Sir B. FALLE: I am much obliged to you, Sir, for having allowed me to go as far as saying that out of these 217 lower-deck cases, only three were, attributed to service in the Navy. That is the whole matter, and I want to impress that upon my right hon. Friend. I shall not trouble him on Vote 12, but do ask him to give his careful consideration to that point. I am quite sure that it is not a question of money; I do not think it would cost the Admiralty as much as it does to throw these men out.

Commander FANSHAWE: I entirely agree with what was said by the hon. and gallant Member for Central Hull (Lieut.-Commander Kenworthy) with regard to the engineer officers of His Majesty's Navy. My only regret in connection with the Fleet Order issued by the Admiralty last November lies in the
fact that that opportunity was taken to emphasise that the engineer officers must return wearing purple as laid down in the Uniform Regulations. There is no doubt that for some time past this purple colour has been departed from by the naval outfitters, but I do not think that that was the exact moment at which to raise that particular point. I do not believe that there is any ill-feeling amongst the engineer officers of the Service at all with regard to what has been called their social status. Their social status is exactly the same as the social status of any other boys coming up from the public schools or from Dartmouth. I have one boy myself at Dartmouth now, and another who, I hope, is just going there. Both of them may be called upon to become engineer officers in His Majesty's Navy. They may be executive officers or engineer officers; I, as a parent, take the risk. I have also a nephew who is an engineer officer in the Navy, and I think that all this loose talk, if I may so call it, about the difference of social status between one officer and another, does no good, and does not help at all, but tends to raise bad feeling in the various messes of the Fleet.
Of course, in times gone by there has been ill-feeling. There is no doubt about that at all, and the hon. and gallant Member for Central Hull knows it as well as I do. The engineers were not officers to begin with at all. In the old days, when the ships of the Navy were propelled by sails as well as by steam, as soon as a ship got out of harbour it was" Down funnel" and" Up screw," and she proceeded under sail until she made her landfall again, whether on the other side of the Atlantic or in some other part of the world. The engineers then were not highly trained or highly skilled—there was no necessity for it —and they were not officers. But gradually, as ships have altered, and as they have been filled with machinery and lost their masts and yards, naturally a new form of officer has grown up.

Sir B. FALLE: I am sure my hon. and gallant Friend does not wish to misrepresent me. Personally, I am a civilian, and it was only because I have received large numbers of complaints from engineer officers, both here and in my constituency, that I have raised
this point. Had there been no call for it, I should certainly not have troubled the House on the matter.

Commander FANSHAWE: I do not want to misrepresent the hon. Baronet, but I have, after all, lived in the Fleet for 25 years and have not only gone down to visit it sometimes. The root of the whole matter is that some of the engineer officers have not liked having that purple between their stripes. I believe it would be a very good thing if they were told they need no longer wear it. Some people say fine feathers make fine birds. The purple between the stripes is more distinctive than the ordinary blue, and if they do not like it let them drop their plumage and become like executive officers of the Fleet. Anything to get rid of any bad feeling that might exist in that respect, but do not let us exaggerate these things unduly.
The hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for Central Hull has spoken of the charges in regard to training, particularly I think at Dartmouth. I think the public school entry does not come into the matter quite so much. Of course fees have been doubled, but they have only been put up in line with the fees charged by all preparatory schools in the country. Apart from that, when your boy is summoned to appear before the Interview Board, you are sent an appeal form to fill in against payment of this £150 per annum for his education, and if you are successful in stating your ease on this form, he will be taken at the old charge of £75 a year. Anyone who has been to Dartmouth will no doubt agree with me that if a man can afford £150 a year for his boy to be educated there it is really money well spent. It is one of the finest educations a boy can possibly have. They go there as little schoolboys, without any idea of responsibility, and when they come home after their first term, you begin to see them growing up into little men. It is a fine training, and I think we can, as we get a good stamp of boy, really leave the fees as they are, at £150 for those who can afford it and £75 for those who cannot afford it quite as well.
The hon. and gallant Gentleman also said he would like to do away with Dartmouth, train all the boys at public schools and then take them to sea. It is a very old tradition of His Majesty's
Navy—catch them young. It is only by catching them quite young that you can imbue them with a proper sense of and liking for the sea. If they begin to be seasick at 18 they are not as good boys as if they are seasick when they are 14.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: The whole point is that they get this 3½ years' training on shore in the college. They are not at sea at all.

Commander FANSHAWE: Only the other day my boy went round in a sloop to see the launch of a cruiser at Devon-port. They are trained on shore, certainly, while the hon. and gallant Gentleman and I were trained on the hulk" Britannia" in the river. At the same time, they go to sea more from the college than we did from the old hulk lying in the river.
The hon. and gallant Gentleman has also spoken about the Admiralty Order with regard to doing away with the military branch of the Service. I agree entirely with what he said. Everyone on board a ship, when the ship goes into action, has his part to play. They are at called upon to work the fighting machine. The paymaster, doctor, and engineer are just as likely to get killed as the executive officer. They are all military branches. The hon. And gallant Gentleman said Lord Fisher had made a mistake. He tried to make the engineers common with the executive officers of the Fleet. My father worked hand in glove with Lord Fisher at Portsmouth, and thoroughly believed in hip scheme—he was one of the few flag officers who did—but he told me only the other day he considered Lord Fisher had made a mistake. Everyone is liable to make mistakes. It was a great idea, it was a great thing to try, but not only in peace time but in war as well it has been found in point of fact that the scheme has broken down. Therefore, I very much hope no one will raise imaginary grievances, and make things worse. I hope the training that is being given to our boys now will be continued. I believe it is the best in the world.

The FIRST LORD of the ADMIRALTY (Mr. Bridgeman): The hon. Member for North Camberwell (Mr. Ammon) asked me how it was that the numbers on Vote A are almost exactly the same as last year. It has been accomplished in this way, that
savings have been made in the manning of the Fleet by putting certain vessels in reserve and scrapping others, and those savings are almost exactly equivalent to the number of men required for manning the new ships as they come into service. Apart from that, the Debate has been mainly on the absorbing subject of purple stripes and brass buttons. Perhaps I can offer a word of comfort to my hon. Friend behind me about the engine-room artificers. They came a few days ago to the Admiralty as a deputation to put their ease, and I am sure it will be given as much consideration as it deserves. I went the other day to see the engineer apprentices, and I was immensely struck by the spirit in which they set about their work and the keenness and energy they showed under very trying circumstances. There is an arrangement by which an engine-room artificer apprentice can be nominated, if he is thought to be up to the standard of education, for a place as a midshipman in His Majesty's Navy.

Mr. AMMON: I think the point is rather whether anything is being done to get lads from schools other than the ordinary accepted public school.

Mr. BRIDGEMAN: No. Of course, the difficulty has been—and I think the hon. Gentleman experienced it when his own side were sitting over here to find the money for these things You cannot do it without money, and the difficulty is almost as insistent, if not more, than it was in his time There is really only this question of the Admiralty Fleet Order and the position of engineer officers. I think it is a very great pity that small points of this kind should be exaggerated, as this has been. I think a misunderstanding arose at the very outset. Perhaps the Fleet Order was not very well worded, or perhaps it was not well explained in the Press. Certainly there was an idea that the effect of the Order was to deprive engineer officers of their military status. That is not the case. They are not deprived of anything of the kind. It is a total misdescription of the meaning of the Fleet Order. What the Fleet Order enjoined was that the term"Military Branch," which up to then had included executive and engineer officers, should no longer be used because it had no particular meaning. Therefore, if engineer officers have lost their military status by the term being done away with,
so has the Commander-in-Chief of the Mediterranean Fleet, because the military branch no longer exists. Everyone knows and recognises that the engineering side is just as indispensable and becomes more and more important. As mechanical contrivances increase and engineering plays a larger and larger part in the work of the Navy, they become as absolutely indispensable as executive officers are for the working of any ship. I never would have agreed to the Order if I had thought that the position of engineer officers was in any way being degraded or altered. It was done for the sake of simplicity, and because experience has proved that it is quite impossible for one man to occupy himself with both executive and engineering work.
Now we come to the purple stripe. I am, perhaps, not the best kind of person to enter into all the niceties of uniform, and the kind of stripe that differentiates one officer from another. My friends sometimes tell me I do not know the difference between a colonel and a sergeant-major, and there may be some truth in it. Perhaps, therefore, I do not pay quite as much attention to the purple stripe as I ought to do. The reason why the engineer officers who join under the common entry scheme have been asked to wear it is because the old engineer officers wore it before them, and we wanted the older and the newer officers to be distinguished by the same decoration. It is suggested that there is something degrading about it. It is not suggested in the Army that the difference between the uniform of one regiment and another makes one inferior to the other. The whole thing, I think, has been looked upon from a purely sentimental, and I think rather puerile, point of view.

Sir B. FALLE: When the right hon. Gentleman speaks of the military branch and the executive branch he is aware, of course, that the commission of the executive officer is to take" charge and command." The engineer officer's commission is nothing of the kind. It is to" discharge the duty of an engineer and to be obedient under such command." There is nothing in common between the two. Between the two regiments the right hon. Gentleman mentions there is everything in common.

5.0 P.M.

Mr. BRIDGEMAN: Then to that extent my simile does not work, but there is nothing in this Fleet Order which alters in any way the position of the engineer officer. He commands as many people as he did before. It has not made any difference to the situation. It is this perpetual sentimental idea that there is something degrading in being asked to wear something which distinguishes you as an engineer. As I have said in this House, I should be only too proud, if I had the qualifications which would entitle me to do it, to wear the purple stripe. I have been asked by one hon. Member whether I would not rather have the executive uniform. It all depends whether I was a good engineer or a good executive officer. If I were good engineer and proud of my profession, as most of them are, I should like to have the purple stripe to show that I was a good engineer. If, on the other hand, I was not a good engineer, but I might be some good as an executive officer, I should be content to wear the executive officer's uniform. It is not the coat that makes the gentleman, nor the stripe. It is a question of conduct and behaviour. When people first meet a man they do not look at his coat or his stripe, but they look at his face to see what type of man he is, as well as they can judge.
I do not think that those who have raised this question are doing any service to the engineer officers in the Navy by trying to magnify what I think is a very trifling irritation. The way to get rid of the irritation is, as I believe and hope the officers in the Navy, both executive officers and engineer officers realise, by good fellowship among themselves and by showing among themselves that they are an equally indispensable part of a very great Service. I do feel that the ventilation of this grievance has gone quite far enough and that it is not doing any good to those on whose behalf it is professed to be raised. To tell me that we shall not get the best class of young men because they might be afraid of wearing the purple stripe on their arm, is to draw an imaginary picture of the young men of to-day. Engineering is a very popular profession with a great many young men, and if they are keen about their job I do not believe that they will consider this question of a stripe, when they are con-
sidering whether they should go in for the engineering profession or not.
I believe that one of the causes which, perhaps, make it not very easy to recruit the very best of the engineering world into the Naval Service, is much more because there are not a large number of high posts in the engineering service for Naval officers in that branch to attain. If it were possible to find more positions higher up in the Navy, I think it would have a very much better effect than any suggestions such as have been made to-day in regard to uniform. I am very glad to say—and I hope it will show that in the mind of the Admiralty, in my own mind and in the mind of the Navy, there is no idea of degradation or lower status for the engineer officers as compared with the executive officers—that the King has been pleased to accept a recommendation that one of the new aides-de-camp of His Majesty shall be an engineer officer. That, at any rate, is some indication that we do not regard their position as having fallen, because that post has not been held hitherto by an engineer officer. I hope that this imaginary grievance, as I think it is, will be allowed to die out and that it will be replaced by a feeling of good comradeship between the two branches in the Navy, both realising that in their own way they are both indispensable, both proud of the Service, both proud of the particular branch to which they belong, and that they are both desirous, not of creating and fomenting irritation, but of making life in the Navy pleasant and happy.

Sir B. FALLE: Is it not a fact that 40,000 professional engineers, civil engineers, mechanical engineers, naval engineers, electrical engineers, marine engineers North-east coast Institute of Engineers and Shipbuilders, asked to be allowed to meet the right hon. Gentleman and have met him and laid this matter before him? When he calls it an imaginary grievance, does he mean to say that these 40,000 professional engineers are, moved by an imaginary grievance?

Mr. BRIDGEMAN: I used the same arguments to them as I have used to-day. I do not know whether one-half of them realise that the engineer officer has not lost any prestige. It may be true that they are not all satisfied, even now, but I have long since given up any
hope of satisfying everybody. The fact that there may have been 40,000 engineers represented, does not prove that these people had studied the subject with sufficient care to understand all its intricacy.

Sir GERALD HOHLER: I had not intended to refer to the question of the engineer officers, had it not been already raised. This matter has been the subject; of private correspondence between the First Lord of the Admiralty and myself, and I thought that the matter might have been settled in that way. However the right hon. Gentleman looks at it, and whatever he may say, the feeling is widespread amongst the officers affected. Their view on the question of wearing the purple stripe is, that it was not in the terms on which they entered the Navy, that this stripe has been put upon them since, and that they appreciated and were proud of wearing executive uniform undistinguished by a purple stripe. Something might have been clone to satisfy that pride, and sentiment, or whatever the First Lord might like to call it. It would not cost the Admiralty anything. Under the terms on which these officers entered the Navy the uniform which they appreciate was theirs of right, and I do respectfully submit that the Admiralty were unwise in treating this as a mere matter of sentiment. As it is not a question of cost, why not restore to the engineer officers that which they prefer? When one comes to think the matter out, there may appear to be very little in it, when one does not speak as an officer in the Navy; but, undoubtedly, the feeling in the matter is widespread.
In a like way, there is feeling among the engine room artificers respecting the black buttons. I have had many complaints not so much from the young men themselves as from their mothers. [Laughter.] This is not a matter for amusement. It is true that the hand that rocks the cradle rules the world. The mothers seem to think that it is some sort of degradation when their sons come home wearing black buttons. It may appear to he a small matter, but if we want to make the Service popular, not only with the young men, but with their parents, it is a matter which ought to be rectified. I gather that the First Lord is considering this
particular question. It is a point on which he might very gracefully yield. I would like the Board of Admiralty and the First Lord seriously to consider whether, having regard to the fact that the Vote for marriage allowance which was voted last year has not been carried out, and that there is no proposal to carry it out this year in view of the demand for economy; it is wise in the year 1926, now that the Great War is over, to continue the enormous subsidy which we pay to merchant cruisers.

Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER (Mr. Hope): I would remind the hon. Member that we are on the personnel Vote.

Sir G. HOHLER: I understood that we were entitled to carry on the general Debate on the Report stage.

Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: No. I thought Mr. Speaker had already made that plain. On these Votes on Report, the Debate must be confined to the subject matter.

Sir G. HOHLER: If that be so, surely we have been very unfairly treated. It has been the invariable practice on Vote A and Vote 8, to discuss the general questions of the Navy.

Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: Not on the Report of these Votes, but in Committee of Supply. It must be assumed that hon. Members know the procedure of the House.

Sir G. HOHLER: I will take good care another time to keep the Debate going in order to raise my point. As this point cannot be raised now, I can only say that I have referred to the subject which I have in my mind, and I hope there will be occasion when it will be debated and that the Admiralty will look into it. We could save £90,000 in this way.

Sir LESLIE SCOTT: Although I was not able to hear the whale of the Debate which has taken place, I wish to add a few words on the subject of the recent Fleet Order as affecting engineer officers. Two questions, it seems to me, are raised by that Order, one as to whether it involves a breach of faith with individuals already in the Navy who have joined the engineering branch, and the other a question of broad public policy for the future. I have no doubt that on the former of these two aspects the House is already in
possession of the facts as understood by those who feel that there is a case for saying that there has been a breach of faith committed. Therefore, I desire to add very little on that subject, except to say that the point, as I see it, is not one of amour propre, or of sentimental opinions not based upon any reality, but a question of the position of the engineer officers in relation to those whom I would call the executive officers. When the engineer officers joined the engineering side, they did so on the definite understanding, expressed perfectly clearly in King's Regulations, that they were part of the military branch. From one point of view, a civilian is as honourable as anyone, but it is idle to say that to belong to the military branch of the Navy is not a great honour and a great glory. It is that fact which underlies the whole of these discussions. From that point of view, those who think there has been a breach of faith have good cause for saying so. I realise that the Admiralty in its recent Fleet Order did not intend to do anything that could possibly prejudice the position of any one of these engineer officers, I realise that they had no intention to degrade their status or affect their position, but I believe it to be the fact that throughout the engineering branch generally there is a strong feeling that the game has not been played in their ease. If instead of having two separate categories," the executive category" and" the engineering category," the Admiralty were to revert to the simple expression of" the military branch" and let the engineer officers and the executive officers alike be members of the military branch, then the main point against which objection is raised would be removed.
I recognise quite freely and candidly that there can be no interchange of duties. The specialisation of to-day is such that it is impossible to make the duties of a highly technical order in each type of work interchangeable. I do not think the engineer officers themselves desire it, nor do the great industrial bodies in civil life. They, too, recognise that the differentiation of duties is right and must continue, but what they do say is, that, as science progresses, the ship of war, of whatever size, must become more and more a mechanical instrument worked by engineers through the art and science of
engineering and, therefore, the handling of a fighting ship in action is just as much the task of the engineer officers as it is of the executive officers. For this reason I respectfully urge that those who complain and protest are justified in saying that they are really persons who belong to the military branch and that they should have the glory of belonging to that branch with all its great traditions.
One word as regards future policy. Though the question of good faith is all important I think the question of policy is equally important. We want to draw into the Navy the very best engineering brains in the country. We want to draw them from all sources; we want to draw the very best young brains with a taste for engineering into the Navy as distinct from civilian engineering. I earnestly submit to the Admiralty that they could achieve this essential by restoring the status of the military branch, including in it the engineer officers, and abolishing this distinctive mark of the purple stripe which to-day separates the engineer officers from the executive officers. This may seem a small thing to us civilians from the point of view of the future efficiency of the Navy, but it is vital that the same glory, the same honour, the same status and the same position should attach to the engineering side as to the executive officers and I think the Admiralty should retrace their steps and should say frankly that they had no intention of making any alteration which would be derogatory. The Admiralty should recognise the strength of the feeling that exists and the arguments against the change and should frankly say that they have made a mistake and undo it.

Mr. DUNCAN: I think a case has been made out for the abolition of the purple badge. It is a badge of inferiority, because it is intended, definitely and purposely intended to distinguish one set of officers from another. There is to be superior and inferior; that is what the badge indicates. One can understand that men who are giving their whole lives to the Navy should feel a little more about the distinction that is sought to he imposed upon it than civilians, but what rather amazes me is this. It would not have been difficult, before this change was put into operation, to find out what was
likely to be the attitude of the people concerned. If a feeler had been put out to these officers it would have been the easiest thing in the world to find out how they were likely to take it. Further, in these days we are out for economy. I do not know what the purple stripe will cost, but the Chancellor of the Exchequer would delight in the cutting down of an expenditure due to the abolition of these stripes.
Why is it necessary that this feeling should be allowed to exist? The First Lord has told us that to him it is a simple matter of detail, a matter of sentiment if you like, and to a large extent I agree that that view may be taken, but as far as the men are concerned it may be also a matter of sentiment but it is also a matter of their particular standing in the Navy. I cannot understand why there should be the slightest suggestion of any inferiority in regard to the engineering section. Anybody who knows anything of the Navy and its development will agree with hon. Members who have spoken that an immense change has takers place in the Navy during the last 20 and 30 years. The warship of to-day is simply a floating machine shop from top to bottom and from side to side, and only men of the highest possible skill are likely to bring out the best there is in that machinery. The very success of a ship of to-day depends on the manipulation of the machinery when the ship goes into action. The captain or the admiral may give his orders, but those orders amount to nothing until the men who have control of the machinery put it into motion; it is only when the whole of the implements of destruction are put in operation that the admiral is able to effect the purpose he desires. It seems rather late in the day now to begin to bring into existence distinctions between these two sets of officers.

Mr. BRIDGEMAN: The engineer officers of years ago had a purple stripe.

Mr. DUNCAN: I heard the speech of the First Lord on that point, and I agree with him that to some extent it is a question of sentiment with the men. If that is all there is in it, and it is obvious this feeling does exist in the Navy, is it not a very simple thing to put an end to it? These men are in the ship, and does anyone suggest that the men in the ships do not know the difference between
officers? Is it to be assumed that an engineer officer would go about giving orders that should only be given by an executive officer? That is too simple to be used as an argument in this connection, and the best way out of the difficulty is to abolish the stripe and let the men work together with good feeling. Then you will get the best out of the men, and also get the type of men that the Navy is after, men of high quality, of good education, who will make the Navy their whole aim in life, and do the utmost in their power for the Service.
Question," That this House doth agree with the Committee in the said Resolution?", put, and agreed to.
Second Resolution read a Second time. Motion made, and Question proposed," That this House doth agree with the Committee in the said Resolution."

Mr. AMMON: There are one or two points on which I should like to ask the First Lord for a little more information. When the Estimate was before the House on the last occasion some criticism was made as to the cost of the medical services in the Navy, and he promised to look into the matter. The complaint is that, compared with the other services, the cost per head is excessive. I should like to know whether any inquiries have been made during the year, or whether anything has been done to bring this within more reasonable limits than obtain at present. I should also like the First Lord to give some consideration to the suggestion made on the former occasion, that some economy could be effected by the pooling of the medical services of the three services. Could he also give us some further information as to the decrease in the marriage allowance in the Navy? Presumably that arises out of the reduced rates of remuneration, though possibly there may be some other reasons.
A more important subject to which I wish to refer is the reduction in the rates of pay of seamen and petty officers. I believe I am correct in saying that it is little more than two years ago when there was an increase given to the men in the Navy, and that, normally speaking, that had been the first increase since the days of Nelson. It seems somewhat extraordinary that, so far as the boys and ordinary seamen are concerned, there should be a very considerable reduction
made. For instance, the boys lose not less than 9d. a day under the new rates, seamen lose at the same rate, and in the following two years they lose 1s and 11d. a day respectively. Economies, it is said, must be made, but it appears to some of us that they are being made at the wrong end. I also want a little information with regard to the Appropriations-in-Aid for £89,000 odd. What proportion of that is received from India for the maintenance of the new naval force to be set up, the Royal Indian Marine? I raise these points in order that the House may obtain more information than was given on the last occasion when we discussed this question.

Mr. HORE-BELISHA: I want to raise the question of the marriage allowance. Last year there was a Vote of £350,000 for marriage allowance for officers in the Royal Navy. The House is aware of the great disappointment which has been felt in the Navy at the non-payment of that allowance, and the First Lord must be aware of the grave distress which would prevail among the officer class if there should be no hope of reinstituting the Vote for that allowance in the future. If it should he found impossible to give this allowance to the officers in the Navy, I want to ask whether it would not be possible to give them children's allowance, such an allowance as was payable in the years 1918 and 1919. Navy officers are having considerable difficulty in educating their children and in meeting ordinary household expenses. I earnestly plead with the First Lord to have some sympathetic regard for the urgency of their case. They are considerably worse off than their fellow-officers in the Army, when one compares the rates of pay received by Army officers with those received by Navy officers. In the Navy there are not anything like the same allowances for the officer class, or, indeed, for the men. Wives have to travel at the expense of the officers. When these Estimates were introduced the right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Swansea (Mr. Runciman) pleaded that travelling allowances might be given to these officers in the same way as they were given in the Army. The First Lord on that occasion did not think fit to give an answer to the question. I hope that he will find an opportunity this afternoon to outline
the policy of the Admiralty towards these officers.
I see, too, that in this Vote there figures some provision for housing allowance. I want to ask the First Lord whether he is aware of the very great difficulty which Navy officers and their wives are finding in getting houses at reasonable rents in the naval ports. The Admiralty cannot dissociate themselves from the responsibility of providing proper housing accommodation for those who man the Fleet, whether they be officers or men. The First Lord must be aware that, owing to the policy pursued by the Government in closing the dockyards at Rosyth and Pembroke, the housing congestion in the English ports has become so serious that neither the officers no: the men are able to pay the rents which are asked of them, and to keep their families in the style to which they are accustomed. I am surprised to see that the First Lord now seeks to dissociate himself from responsibility in the matter. The Chancellor of the Exchequer, when speaking on this subject in 1913, he then being the First Lord of the Admiralty, said:
 We are bound to study the social and domestic aspect of the naval service. The ultimate strategy of the British Navy consist in housing contented men in prosperous and healthy homes, from which the children, generation after generation, can return to the ships which their fathers taught them to honour.
Those are very impressive words, and when the present Chancellor of the Exchequer uttered them he was speaking under the humaner auspices of a Liberal Administration. I hope that the First Lord will endeavour to imitate his example, and will be able to hold out some hope that the housing arrangements for the men and for the officers will be properly looked into by his Department. The right hon. Gentleman has adequate resources.
In the past year there has been a reduction in the pay of the Navy, and it is a reduction which has taken place in defiance of the most specific pledges to the contrary. When the new rates of pay were introduced in 1919 they were expressed to be permanent, and it was said that they were being introduced to remedy the injustice that existed for a large number of years. The pay of the men had not been revised or raised appreciably for at least 50 years, if my
recollection serves me right. At any rate, there was a very grave agitation, and the Naval man was the last man to have his pay raised, compared with the other Services and with industries. He got that increase, and, in the words of the Fleet Order, it was expressed to be permanent. Some years afterwards, under a previous Conservative administration, a Committee was appointed known as the Anderson Committee. It was a Committee on which the Navy was not properly represented. The Naval man was compared with a farm labourer, and the grossest and vilest and most unjustifiable attacks were made upon him, and he was indeed treated as if he were a person who was of no service whatever to the community.
That Committee recommended certain reductions in the pay of the Navy. Those reductions have now been put into operation, and in a peculiar way. Of course, it was impossible for the Admiralty to break its contract with the men already serving, and everyone appreciates the fact that the First Lord saw to it that that contract was not broken. But for those who entered the Navy after 4th October, 1925, the lower scale of pay was instituted, and that lower scale is stated in the Estimates in this particular Vote. What is the result? You have two men in the Navy working side by side, performing exactly the same task, and having similar obligations to discharge in respect of their own welfare and the welfare of their families, and yet getting two different rates of pay. For instance, an ordinary seaman under the old contract gets 2s. 9d. a day, whereas under the present contract he gets 2s. An able seaman gets 4s. under the old contract, and 3s. per day under the new contract. Here you have two men working side by side, doing exactly the same work, and at the end of the week drawing different rates of remuneration. Such a system is bound to result badly for the Service, and it is bound to create discontent. The man on the lower scale is entitled to claim that he is putting his energy and strength into his work with the same fervour and patriotism as his brother who is drawing the higher rate.
I would like to know whether the First Lord thinks that this system can last to the complete satisfaction of the Admiralty and the country? It is creating in the minds of the men a feeling that when the
lower scale ratings reach efficiency the higher scale ratings will be dispensed with, that on the conclusion of the first period of their engagement they will be allowed to go on to the labour market, and that men will be re-engaged into the Navy on the lower scale of pay. Without developing the point, it is obvious that discontent is bound to arise when there are two different scales of pay for the same work. You have a particular grievance in the thought that these men have their wives at home, that they have rent to pay and families to keep. In the serious economic situation of the country it is not fair to reduce the men's scale of pay by such a method. How long is it intended to keep this system in operation?
What is the effect of the new short service that the First Lord is re-instituting in the Navy? Hitherto the Navy has been considered as a life service. A man has been taken young and kept throughout his working days in the Service. The Admiralty have now reverted to a system by which a man may serve for a few years and then be sent on to the labour market. What effect does the First Lord think that will have upon the spirit of the Navy as a whole and upon its traditions? Does he think that it is a good thing to treat the Navy as we treat the Army—as an occupation which is followed for a few years only and then is left completely behind by the person who has served in it? It is an entirely new idea in modern times to regard the Navy as a short service. I feel most strongly, naturally, about the manner in which the officers have been treated about marriage allowance. I do not know whether I should be in order, but, as a protest, I would like to move a reduction of the Vote by £5.

Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: That ought to have been done when the Vote was read out. The Question has now been put," That this House doth agree with the Committee in the said Resolution."

Mr. BRIDGEMAN: With regard to the short service, I do not think it possible to say what the effect will be. It is an experiment on a small scale at the present time and I do not like to say more about it. With regard to the reduction of pay, the hon. Gentleman
who has just spoken must remember that the scale which was in existence for those who were in the Navy up to the time this change was made was based on a period when the cost of living was 120 per cent. above the pre-War level. Therefore, the new rates are fixed not so much with regard to pre-War rates as with regard to what was thought to be a proper reduction from that 120 per cent. cost of living to the cost of living at the moment, and, comparing the present rates with the pre-War rates, I do not think anybody can say that there is any great cause for complaint on the part of the new entrants. An able seaman gets 3s. now compared with 1s. 8d. before the War; a leading seaman gets 4s. 4d. compared with 2s. 2d. before the War; and a petty officer gets 6s. compared with 3s. before the War. I do not think, on the figures, anyone can say that the scale is not a fair one in view of the cheaper cost of living.
The hon. Member also asked how we reconciled ourselves to a scheme under which two men doing exactly the same kind of work were paid at different rates. What is the alternative? Either you must, for all time, maintain the scale at 120 per cent. above the pre-War cost of living and perpetuate that scale, or else you must do what the hon. Member himself described as an injustice to the men who joined the Navy under that particular scale. This is the only intermediate course. Otherwise, you must either say to the men who were in the Navy that their pay will be reduced or else you must for all time pay at the highest rate ever reached. The hon. Member knows that fact quite well, and can explain it better than I to those who may question him about it. He then referred to housing and said it was the duty of the Admiralty to provide houses for their employés. That has never been held to be the duty of the great Services.

Mr. HORE-BELISHA: I quoted authority for it.

Mr. BRIDGEMAN: The Treasury to-day do not take that view, and I think the Treasury at most periods have not taken that view. I sympathise with the difficulty experienced in the hon. Member's part of the world but that difficulty is not the creation of the Admiralty so much as it is due to want of enterprise
on the part of the local authorities. Why is it that the local authorities, having a shortage of 5,000 houses, are not doing anything to meet it?

Viscountess ASTOR: It is not their fault.

Mr. BRIDGEMAN: If they are doing something, then it looks as if the grievance were gone.

Viscountess ASTOR: The local authorities had nothing to do with closing Rosyth and Pembroke, and it is of that we complain.

Mr. BRIDGEMAN: I consider that the Admiralty by taking men from Rosyth and Pembroke to Devonport have enabled Members for Devonport to draw attention to the housing grievance in their particular borough—which is not due to the 400 or 500 men we are sending from Rosyth or Pembroke, but due to want of foresight by the local authorities.

Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: I do not see what this matter has to do with the question before the House.

Mr. BRIDGEMAN: I was asked a question about housing by the hon. Member for Devonport (Mr. Hore-Belisha), but I do not want to go into the matter further if it is out of order.

Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: Had I understood the effect of the question at the time, it would not have been allowed.

Mr. BRIDGEMAN: The hon. Member also referred to marriage allowances. I think he knows that. I had great sympathy with this claim and did all I could last year to secure marriage allowances for naval officers, and he must also remember that I said when the Estimates were introduced:
 Much as I sympathise with the appeal for marriage allowances for officers, it is not quite true to say that the thing is yet a fait accompli."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 19th March, 1925; cols. 2520–21, Vol. 181.]
Therefore the House knew that the expenditure of this money which was down in the Vote depended on the decision of the Cabinet. I regret that so much disappointment should have been caused on that occasion and I am sorry I was unable to persuade my colleagues of the strength of the case which I felt
myself. I think that was made perfectly clear last year. With regard to travelling allowances I feel it would be impossible to give any undertaking. There are now travelling allowances for long appointments ashore in foreign countries. I do not know how far it would be possible to extend that system, but I am quite ready to look into the question. I certainly cannot promise anything, and, like all other questions of the kind, it will require to be considered in comparison with the other Services.

Lieut.-Commander BURNEY: Will the right hon. Gentleman consider the advisability of approaching the railway companies with a view to getting the same facilities, such as are now given to the general public at week-ends, extended generally to Navy officers and men on leave? Under ordinary conditions weekend tickets at reduced rates are issued to the public, available from Friday to Tuesday. It would be a great boon to officers and men of the Navy if they could get tickets at that rate for their leave period, whether it was at week-ends or in mid-week.

Mr. BRIDGEMAN: I will inquire into that question and see if there is any possibility of carrying out the suggestion. The hon. Member for North Camberwell (Mr. Ammon) referred to the medical expenses which he suggested were excessive. I think as a matter of fact we are rather more economical in this respect in the Navy than the other two Services. The point of his remarks was that we should aim at more co-operation than exists at present. A great deal of advance is being made in that direction. As far as the hospitals arc concerned, we are gradually trying to use more of the hospitals for the other Services as well as our own. Sometimes we abolish ours and use theirs and in other cases the procedure is reversed, and I think in that way an improvement is undoubtedly possible. With regard to a common medical service for the three branches, there are a great many difficulties in the way, and I doubt very much if you could recruit doctors when they did not know to which of the three Services they would be attached. The hon. Member also asked a question about the appropriation-in-aid in respect of India. We still get £100,000 from the Indian Government
towards the services of His Majesty's Navy on the Indian coast. Although the new Indian Navy will shortly be in existence, we still get that appropriation-in-aid.

Mr. AMMON: Why is there a decrease this year of nearly £6,000?

Mr. BRIDGEMAN: I cannot answer that question offhand, but I will ascertain and let the hon. Member know. The Appropriation-in-Aid I think is still £100,000. The hon. Member also said that savings had been made on the pay of the men rather than in other directions. I have already pointed out that only new entrants are affected, and he knows quite well that the pay of the officers is revised according to the cost of living, and therefore I do not think there is any inequality.

Mr. AMMON: The officers are on a sliding scale.

Mr. BRIDGEMAN: In the case of the men, new entrants for five years came in on the top scale, and it is the last new entrants only who are reduced. On the last occasion when the hon. Member dealt with this subject he referred to savings effected in tobacco and soap supplied to the men. He probably realises now, that this is only a repayment service and the men buy what they want, so that there is no question of reducing their allowance in any way. I think I have now answered all the points that were raised, and I hope the hon. Member for North Camberwell will allow me to give a further answer to his question as to the Appropriation-in-Aid when I have ascertained the facts more fully.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for the small concession he has made to us in Hull. The Admiralty in their pursuit of economy took away the capitation grant for the sea cadets corps which exists in different seaports and form a very valuable recruiting ground for the Service. The Secretary of State for War acted in the same way in regard to military cadets, but after an agitation restored the grant. We then approached the Admiralty in the matter of the sea cadets, and the Admiralty has now restored that grant, for which I am indeed grateful. We are now getting 3s. 6d. a head for every efficient cadet in
these corps. These boys are drawn from the poorest districts in the seaports and the money is extremely useful for this work, which is carried out by gentlemen who simply do it for the love of the thing. There are no charges for administration or anything of that sort. I have the honour of being president of the Hull corps, and there are other corps in other ports, and the instructors do the work of training, evening after evening, without receiving a penny piece. I do not wish to appear like the daughter of the horse leech and, having been given something, I hesitate to ask for more. Still, I may ask, why is it that the military cadets are allowed 5s. a head and the sea cadets only 3s. 6d. a head?

Mr. BRIDGEMAN: I am looking into that matter, and I will certainly do what I can to get an equally fair amount for the s a cadets.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: I am glad to hear that from the right hon. Gentleman. I thought this was a good opportunity to raise the matter, and I feel sure that I have support in all parts of the House. I am glad to hear that the right hon. Gentleman will do what he can in the matter, and I hope he will see that we are put on a par with the junior Service in this respect. I can assure the right hon. Gentleman that he will get very good service in the future and very good value from these corps of sea cadets.

6.0 P.M.

Sir B. FALLE: I agree with most of what fell from my hon. Friend the Member for Devonport (Mr. Hore-Belisha) as to the need of equal payment. I do not know, and I shall not pretend to give, a solution of the matter, but we have the experience of the War to show that you cannot get two men serving alongside each other loins the same duty at different rates of pay. We tried that for three years, and in November; 1917, although this House and the Admiralty were warned again and again, it took something like an emeute in the Grand Fleet before the Admiralty recognised that men fighting side by side should have the same amount of wages, and the men were paid, and paid retrospectively. Now we are going to suggest that men shall for 20 years receive, one 4s. a day and the other 3s., for doing exactly the same work, and we are going to land our-selves in a very great difficulty. I think
perhaps the men themselves might put up with it, but I am sure that their wives will not, and when one wife, Mrs. Sailor-man, finds her neighbour is receiving more than she is, there will be trouble, and if there is trouble there, that trouble will immediately after be made by the sailor who is serving. There is one point in regard to short service in regard to which I did not follow my right hon. Friend. He said it was experimental, and only for a certain number. There are 1,000 boys less this year, I believe, so that there will be 1,000 short service men to take their place.

Mr. BRIDGEMAN: That is not so.

Sir B. FALLE: I am glad to hear that. I was going to say that, at the rate of 1,000 a year short service men, we should in a very few years' time have the whole Navy nothing but short service. I am all in favour of these cuts being begun at the top. I speak as a civilian, and I do not pretend to lay down any law, except the law as it appears to me. I know that for a layman to pretend to lay down the law or to interpret the law is the act of an imbecile, so I speak as a civilian, and only as a civilian, but I should like to see cuts from the top. When I look at the Atlantic Fleet and see six battleships and five gentlemen flying their flags or wearing the broad pennant, and when I turn to the Mediterranean Fleet and see six battleships and eight gentlemen flying their flags, it seems to me that a reduction of pay for the men is a mistake. I want to thank my right hon. Friend for what he did in regard to the marriage allowances. We are all more than grateful to him for the stand he made for the marriage allowance, and we are quite assured, and we quite understand, that had it rested with him the officers would have had it. The question now has been beaten underground, but it is still there, and it is still very insistent, and the allowance will have to come.
The only other point I wish to make is one on which my right hon. Friend did not touch in his speech, and that was the question of the men who are invalided out of the Navy. I was not allowed to raise that question on the last Vote, but I would like to know what the right hon. Gentleman proposes to do with these young men who are invalided from the
Service without any appeal whatever. I believe be is with me on that point, and I should like to hear if he has any proposals to make, or if he can think of any way in which these men shall have, at any rate, the fair chances that are given to almost everybody else.

The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the BOARD of ADMIRALTY (Mr. J. C. Davidson): I only rise in regard to the question of the grant-in-aid received from the Indian Government. If the hon. Member for North Camber-well (Mr. Ammon) will turn to page 8 of the Navy Estimates, he will find the sum of £100,000, and on page 9 he will see how it is distributed through the Votes. Then, if he will turn to page 20, he will see that the contribution this year is the same as last year, namely, £28,000. As regards the point which the hon. and gallant Member for North Portsmouth (Sir B. Falle) raised about appeals, we have answered a question already on that subject. The Admiralty have taken the matter up with the sister Services, and more than that I cannot say at present, but we are looking into the question.

Sir B. FALLE: Thank you.

Mr. DUNCAN: I was rather interested in the attitude of the First Lord in regard to the housing question in Plymouth. I think it is obvious that the Government itself is responsible for the additional difficulty in the housing question at Plymouth, caused by the closing of Rosyth and Pembroke Docks, because the Admiralty are, as a matter of fact., transferring men from these two dockyards to Plymouth. What I would like to know is this: Is the Government leaving it entirely to private enterprise to make provision for the men who have been transferred to Plymouth? Has the Government no responsibility in the matter, or is it shirking its responsibility? Does not the First Lord think it must obviously be a very great hardship to men to be transferred from these places and sent to places like Plymouth or Portsmouth, where the housing conditions are admittedly of a very difficult character, and to be put in competition with those who are already badly housed?

Mr. SPEAKER: That is hardly relevant to the present Vote.
Question," That this House doth agree with the Committee in the said Resolution," put, and agreed to.
Third Resolution read a Second time.
Motion made, and Question proposed," That this House doth agree with the Committee in the said Resolution."

Mr. AMMON: I have no wish to weary the House by again going over all the arguments, so far as policy is concerned, with regard to Singapore, which were dealt with on the last occasion when the Vote was before us, nor do I wish to enter into any detailed remarks as to the closing of Rosyth and Pembroke Dockyards. I want, however, in regard to Singapore, to repeat a question that I raised when the Navy Estimates were before us a few days ago, as to what had caused the alteration in policy on the part of the Admiralty in deciding to put in place the floating dock before they had completed the graving dock, as was the first intention. The other question is as to the decision not to go forward with the reconstruction of the ex-German dock, but rather to scrap that and build an entirely new floating dock. I know that in the White Paper issued with the Vote the right hon. Gentleman says that experience has shown the reconstruction of the German clock to be impracticable, and a new dock has accordingly been ordered, but surely it is fair to ask what new experience has arisen to show that to be impracticable, because all these considerations were under review at least a year or two ago. The matter was considered by the naval experts, and such difficulties as getting the dock through the Canal and all those things were considered, and it was decided, even up to the time when the right hon. Gentleman presented his Estimates last year, that they could then go forward with this dock and would be able to utilise it.
Now, something else has evidently transpired, which was not then under consideration. I suggest vary respectfully that this ought to have been foreseen by the Admiralty staff, and that it ought not to have got to this stage before they suddenly discovered, after repeatedly saying that the ex-German dock was suitable, that they could no longer use it, and that we must be put to the extra expense, for doubtless it will be an extra expense, of building a new dock. The House also
would like some explanation as to why there is a decrease under Vote 10, and whether it is in a measure due to the slowing down of the Singapore scheme or not. Looking at the Vote as a whole, one is bound to say that there does not seem anything very tangible in the so-called reduction. The reduction, it is true, may be all right for this year, but it looks remarkably like deferred expenditure, and as if we are going to have a very much heavier bill next year. That, after all, will not help us very much, as we have no assurance that the position will be any more satisfactory next year than it is now. Anyway, it will help the House considerably if they can have some further enlightenment on that matter.
I want to ask whether the right hon. Gentleman can give us any comfort with regard particularly to those men who will be displaced by the closing of Rosyth and Pembroke. Through no fault of their own, those men find themselves displaced from their homes, and sent to other dockyards to seek work in places where the housing question is already a. very difficult one, even before the advent of these large numbers of men with their families. Is the Admiralty itself going to undertake any responsibility and do anything towards promoting housing schemes to house their own particular people who have been transferred? There is some sort of moral responsibility imposed on the Admiralty in this matter, and they could no doubt co-operate with the local authorities and help them with their housing schemes, at least so far as their own men are concerned. There is, I see, a considerable decrease in regard to ordinary repairs and maintenance. Does that mean that we are going to have, with regard to a particular ship, a repetition of the position that arose when I was on that bench, and when some humourist put the question to me in the House as to how long it would be before His Majesty's Ship" Methuselah" was completed? That was in regard to the number of years it took to build a ship owing to it being kept hack for" stand-by" work, rather than going forward with the construction of the vessel as a whole.
Those are the main points I wanted to raise, but particularly I want further information with regard to the Singapore
scheme, why there is a changed policy as to the order in which the docks are being completed, and what new reasons have arisen for the Admiralty deciding to scrap the German dock in order that we should build another floating dock of our own. Further, I should like to know if there is any likelihood of us getting a purchaser for the new German dock, or will it be put in any other part of the British Empire?

Lieut.-Commander BURNEY: I should like to congratulate the First Lord of the Admiralty on having successfully carried through his policy of closing down both Rosyth and Pembroke dockyards, but there is one question I should like to ask him in regard to Pembroke. I have heard rumours to this effect: Is he or is he not being advised to put such stringent conditions upon the contract for the dispoa1 of Pembroke Dockyard as to make it very difficult for those who are considering the acquisition of this dockyard to make out a satisfactory contract with the Admiralty? I would suggest to him that they might be able to make this contract very flexible, because the Admiralty has full power to take over anything during a time of war, and it is of very little use, if the right hon. Gentleman is wishing to dispose of a dockyard, to tie it up with conditions which the commercial interests are not able to carry out.
The main reason why I rose was to put a more serious matter, not only to the First Lord, but also to the hon. Member who is at present leading the Opposition, to see whether or not it is possible for both the Labour party and the present Government to co-operate in a policy which would secure a certain amount of economy in the near future. The present position in regard to Singapore is that the proposal originally made, and for which the various Dominions and Dominion Governments made offers, has altered, and at the present moment the whole policy is only settled and arranged for a matter of two years. I would like to remind the House of the present position and to give the financial figures. Hong Kong gave £250,000, and the Malay States £180,000 and land. That amount was given for the big scheme. Australia offered £1,000,000, but has since withdrawn its offer. New Zealand, I think, offered £250,000, but has since spent that
money upon a new cruiser. Therefore, as far as the general policy is concerned, nothing has been done to reintroduce the ten-year or big programme by the present Government, because apart from that, as hon. Members will remember, the scheme as originally proposed was altered when the Labour Government were in power. Therefore, if we are going to get continuity of policy, it is very desirable for the two parties to come to some agreement before the Imperial Conference meets in October of this year. The Dominion Prime Ministers will be coming over in October, and they will require to go into many questions of national defence, and, obviously, they must, go into the naval question which concerns them perhaps more than either the aerial question or the military question. On this point another consideration arises, and one also brought about by what happened when the Labour Government were in power.

Mr. DUNCAN: In office.

Lieut.-Commander BURNEY: Well, in office—it does not matter. When the Labour Government were in office they threw over the Singapore scheme at the same time that they increased the Air Vote in this country for the protection of these islands. The effect, therefore, upon Imperial and Dominion sentiment was to create the feeling that the British House of Commons is willing to vote money for the defence of England, but is doing so at the expense of weakening the defences of the outer Empire, namely, the Dominions. Accordingly, when we realise that the whole naval power of the world has undergone a great reorientation, that now the Pacific is the centre of any future naval activity, and that the Dominions which border that ocean will have to provide the basis for our more modern naval power, it does become a very pertinent question as to whether both parties in this House have a common naval policy and common defence policy. Otherwise, the question will arise, that whereas the Dominions may make contributions towards the naval expenditure, they will not be very reassured in making that expenditure if they think it possible that when the Labour Government again come into power, they will reverse the policy which is being carried out by the present Government. Therefore, I would ask the
hon. Member who is at the moment leading the Labour party, whether he would not represent to the Leader of the Opposition, in view of the Imperial Conference this year, whether it would not be possible for the Labour party to come to an agreement on general policy with the existing Government, so that the Dominions would at least realise that, upon a change of Government in this country, the question of their own naval defence would he safeguarded.
That brings me to another question with regard to these dockyards. At the present moment, although a reduction has been made both in Rosyth and Pembroke, we have twice as many dockyardmen per tonnage of shipping at present in the British Navy compared with what it was before the War. We are developing Malta Dockyard; we are going to develop Singapore Dockyard. It is obvious, therefore, that if the whole naval strength of the Empire has to undergo this reorientation, due to the naval centre shifting to the Pacific, we do not want the same dockyard accommodation in this country that we wanted for the Dutch Wars, the French Wars or the late War. Therefore, I would press upon the First Lord of the Admiralty that he must face, this question of dockyard policy in this country with a broad view as to what are the possible developments in future. So far as Chatham and Sheerness are concerned, we have continually attacked the maintenance of those dockyards as being obsolete, out-of-date, and absolutely useless from the general aspect of naval power as it is to-day.

Mr. AMMON: Recruiting?

Lieut.-Commander BURNEY: You can recruit from anywhere. I really think it is an extraordinary argument of a party, which is rather pressing economy upon the Government at the present time, to suggest to the Government that they must continue to maintain a dockyard at an expense of £2,000,000 per annum for the purpose of recruiting.

Mr. AMMON: It is another factor.

Lieut.-Commander BURNEY: Yes: but it is a factor of such a minor character, that I think one can disregard it, when we come to consider the whole general naval policy. So far as Sheerness is
concerned, I know the First Lord of the Admiralty is anxious to get rid of it, and it is only used as a provisioning base. But I would ask him to be drastic in that respect, and really close it. Chatham is a more difficult matter, because not only have we to prepare for a fight by my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Gillingham (Sir G. Hohler), but, at the same time, there is a plausible, but fictitious, case which can be made out for retention. Various suggestions can be put forward that the stores are there, and otherwise would have to be kept, elsewhere; that they have a lot of plant there which would otherwise be scrapped, and in every case, when Committees have been set up by the Admiralty to investigate this problem, it has always been investigated upon the basis that Chatham should be used as a private shipping establishment or for normal private commercial work. I would suggest to the right hon. Gentleman that no one in his senses would use Chatham as a shipbuilding establishment, unless there was a strategic reason lying behind. It is much too far away from the coal, iron, and great engineering enterprises of the North Country. But the way in which I think it could be used is as a port. Suggestions have been made before in this House that there should he a real investigation as to the commercial possibilities of making Chatham an extension of the Port of London, putting a tunnel under the Thames so as to connect it with a direct line, and allow Chatham to supply goods to the North of England without their having to go through London. I understand there are great possibilities in a proposition of that kind.
Then I would press upon the right hon. Gentleman to set up a committee of independent business men to go into this question, and endeavour to find out some proposal which would make Chatham an asset from the commercial point of view, since it is perfectly useless from the naval point of view—perhaps it is going too far to say" perfectly useless at the present time"—but comparatively useless, and bound to become more and more useless as our naval strength centres upon the Pacific, and as our aerial strength develops in this country. I think if the first proposal I made in regard to cooperation between the Labour party and
the present Government for a continuous policy as to Singapore were coupled with the disestablishment of Chatham Dockyard as a dockyard, there would be no greater expense involved, and, in so far as the disarmament question is concerned obviously we have got to face facts. If the nations in the world do not disarm, the official Opposition would not support a proposal that this country alone should disarm. Therefore, whatever development is made at Singapore, it is made upon the assumption that if there is a general disarmament this country will agree to do its share of that disarmament, but that if there is no general disarmament, this country will show to the Dominions and Colonies that we are carrying out those great traditions which we have always carried out, and maintain the defence of this Empire from the naval point of view. I believe if that be done, we shall secure from our Dominions that financial cooperation and assistance which are year by year becoming more important to this country. It was only the other day that figures were given in this House showing that Canada made practically no naval contribution, and, I believe, largely because it felt that the whole naval policy is dictated from this country, and because money, which otherwise would be spent upon naval defence of the Empire, may under new conditions of aerial warfare be deflected from naval expenditure to expenditure upon aerial machines which will be used, not for its defence, but for the defence only of this country.
In conclusion, I would impress upon the right hon. Gentleman these three things, and I would like him, if he would, to give me definite answers to them. The first is that the conditions of sale of these dockyards should be made as flexible as possible, upon the idea that when they are required for war, the Admiralty can always impose, by Order-in-Council, what conditions it likes, subject, of course, to compensation; secondly, that he will undertake to set up an independent committee of business men to see in what manner Chatham can be made a commercial port, so that he may dispense with it from the Navy Estimates; and, thirdly, that he will give an undertaking that no further men shall be taken on either at Chatham or at Sheerness and put upon
the permanent and established strength of those yards. When I look in the Estimates, I find that the cost has gone up from £166,000 to £170,000 this year at Chatham, although the personnel has been reduced from 586 to 585. At Sheerness, the cost has gone up from £55,000 to £56,000. When we come to these questions of closing down the yards we are always faced with the difficulties of disposing of the men upon the permanent strength. Lastly I would ask the right hon. Gentleman if he will ascertain whether the Leader of the Opposition will agree to a general conference between the two parties on the question of continuity of policy upon naval bases; and whether he will consider immediately dispensing with Chatham in order that the expenditure upon our bases shall not be any greater. He might do that in acknowledgment and as a return for generally acquiescing in a naval policy for a period of years.

Sir G. HOHLER: My hon. and gallant Friend, I gather, has resigned from the Navy on half-pay. I further gather that he has entered upon commercial pursuits, where I trust he will be successful. I gather, too, that it is not as a naval officer hut as an ordinary member that he has just addressed his remarks to the House. He suggests to the First Lord of the Admiralty that it will not be difficult to draft in any contract in respect to a possible purchaser or lessee of Pembroke certain conditions—I am not quite sure what—but the suggestion seemed to be that if the Government required the yard again, any term they did not find in the contract of sale they could put into it. That is why my hon. and gallant Friend said—

Lieut.-Commander BURNEY: No, that is not what I want.

Sir G. HOHLER: That is what the hon. and gallant Gentleman said, that you ought to have an Order-in-Council to put terms into the contract that were not there.

Lieut.-Commander BURNEY: What I said was that if a war came the Admiralty, if they had not got certain powers, should, under an Order-in-Council, take them, and put them into force from a national point of view. That is what has been done in past wars.

Sir G. HOHLER: Everybody, except it may be my hon. and gallant Friend, is well acquainted with the powers that the Government can take in case of war; but I gather that his suggestion had some particular reference to Pembroke. It is extraordinary what an elementary want of knowledge there may be in the progress of human affairs. Surely the hon. and gallant Gentleman cannot have forgotten that a few days ago we passed in this House a Trade Facilities Act, by which we have given power to the Government to guarantee a loan for £2,000,000 for coal mines in Kent. Here we have the hon. and gallant Gentleman putting forward erratic views. Has he forgotten the Medway? He talks about wanting a tunnel under the Thames, but we have to remember the Medway in that connection. He may have to wait for 500 years for a tunnel under the Thames. Has he considered the geographical configuration of the country? If we have this coal in Kent—and the Government had a Committee which sat upon this question and recommended that they should guarantee two million pounds—it must be fairly well evident to all, and except perhaps my hon. and gallant Friend, that it will not be necessary to have this wonderful tunnel under the Thames for another 500 years, and that is the age of Chatham dockyard.
My hon. and gallant Friend suggested the ungrateful nature of man when he actually put Chatham second, and Sheerness first. A question was put on the Paper not long since as to what was going to happen in regard to Sheerness. What did the First Lord answer? He gave an excellent answer to the effect that there is a very full programme at Sheerness, but the hon. and gallant Gentleman is not clear as to how the programme stands at Chatham. He does not know what it is; he has gone into commercial life. But consider what Chatham Dockyard is. Believe me, it really has 500 years of glory behind it, and that is my answer to the hon. and gallant Gentleman. Does he remember the large and magnificent cruiser launched the other day,"The Kent"? I do not know whether he went there during his naval career, or whether he went to Devon-port or Portsmouth, but in regard to Chatham may I remind him it has got the finest naval barracks in
the country? The matter does not rest there. We have had an agitation, and quite rightly. One of the suggestions put forward has been that we should try and combine the medical service of the Army and the Navy. You have an opportunity to do that at Chatham. There is the finest naval hospital, I am satisfied, in this country; and if my hon. and gallant Friend had happened to be hurt in the Service of which he is so distinguished a member, and needed an operation, I am sure we could have attended to him there—and kept him there, perhaps, during the whole of the Session!
You have got one corps of the Royal Engineers, one of the greatest if not the greatest in the country. There are two other regiments there. Naturally they vary from time to time. We have barracks there too. We have got the Royal Marines. In regard to the possibility of saving expense, what better opportunities could you have of carrying them into operation than at Chatham? I wonder if the hon. and gallant Gentleman has ever considered the question of repairs. I do not know that these matters ever enter into the minds of naval men, but when he makes these attacks and puts forward these insults from lack of knowledge, he ought to know that the Government—that is the Admiralty—did try some years ago to have their ships repaired outside. What happened? The work was so badly done and was found to be more costly than they could do it inside for themselves. So the repairs, I think I am right in saying, are now undertaken by the Admiralty in the dockyard. They do them in the various yards.
Surprise has been expressed by the hon. and gallant Gentleman at the increase of expenditure, but let me tell him one or two things. There is, first, the" Kent" being completed. There are internal fittings to be put in. My hon. and gallant Friend ought to know that there are engines to be put into the ship. He does not seem to consider that at all. There is talk of extravagance. In addition to what I say, the repairs are a very expensive item. But it stands to the credit of the yard that, although the keel of the" Kent" was laid down six weeks after that of the" Cornwall," she was launched only five days after! We have
docks, and graving docks, and everything necessary for the purposes of the work done; therefore, I say that really I think it malicious to put this forward—it cannot be directed to me—but it is malicious to make these unqualified attacks, feeble in their character, and born of ignorance, in regard to Chatham Dockyard.
It is one of the great recruiting centres of this country. It is usual to attack Chatham and to say that Chatham must go. I do not know what part in the controversy as between Rosyth and Chatham my hon. and gallant Friend took, and I did not care at the time. But it is of great importance to remember these things. I wonder if Wales, I wonder if Scotland, ever contributed as many men to His Majesty's Navy as has Chatham and district. They have contributed practically the whole—I will not say the whole, but a large portion of the whole. The houses in the town are inhabited and owned by ex-naval men. It is true that they perhaps have not the means which the hon. and gallant Gentleman enjoys. They are people of moderate means; their savings and their homes are there. Their sons and relatives enter the Navy. It is hereditary. The sons follow the fathers into the Navy and have done so for years. They account Chatham their home. When a ship comes to Chatham the men go at once to their homes. All these advantages my hon. and gallant Friend ignores, because it suits his purpose. He has not shown any programme as to how this cutting down is to be effected, or what economy it is going to achieve. If he can show anything like what I have suggested one might say there was a glimmer of intelligence, but in these proposals of economy I do not see the least glimmer of any sort or kind. I hope my hon. and gallant Friend will have nothing more to say about Chatham except how good it is, and that Chatham ought to be maintained whatever happens to the other places.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: I will not dwell upon what the hon. and learned Member for Chatham (Sir G. Hohler) has said in relation to my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Uxbridge (Lieut.-Commander Burney), but I think he might have left personalities out of it. This is not a personal matter. The reasons against Chatham are three, and they are unanswerable. In
the first place, the Navy does not need it, especially now that we have a dockyard at Singapore; the second reason is that the depth of water at all states of the tide in the Medway puts it quite outside the use of ships of a modern size, and the third reason is that it is dangerously exposed to air attack from the Continent. That danger is getting greater, and increasing every month. These are the reasons against Chatham. It is very unfortunate that there are many shopkeepers and others who will suffer in the closing down of the dockyard, but you have an analogous case in the closing of a coal mine where it may be necessary. What the Admiralty ought to do is to make plans over a number of years, and prepare some alternative employment, or some compensation, for those who are dispossessed. The hon. and learned Gentleman spoke about the 500 glorious years of Chatham. That may be all well, but we have to face facts as they are. If the Admiralty contention is right that the basis of naval power has shifted to the Pacific, if they are right in spending about £10,000,000 on Singapore, then they must make compensation in the home dock-yards. There is no getting away from that. If you encourage the people and the Government to go on wasting money on both places, it will be wrong.
As to the speech of the hon. and gallant Member for Uxbridge, I really disagreed with the first part of the speech as much as I agreed with the second part. I think he made a most mischievous plea to the House which may make it easier that we should spend money on the Air Force, because we are afraid of attack on London. He said that the Labour Government and also this Government had reduced expenditure on Singapore which would be of benefit to the defence of the Dominions. I think that is a very mischievous way of putting it.

Lieut.-Commander BURNEY: What I said was that when the Labour Government were in they had actually done that. My suggestion was made to prevent a recurrence of what the Labour Government did; not to shut down the policy of Singapore, while at the same time spending more money on aerial armaments in this country.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: The two things have nothing to do with each other. Everyone knows that the Air Force
is miserably weak, that the capital of the Empire stands open to the most terrible form of attack, and everyone knows that the Labour Government's policy had to be taken as a whole. It was part of a general attempt at the pacification of the world. They had not time to follow it out. It was because of their policy in regard to Singapore that I regret they did not for longer get support from my party—for that and other things.
As Singapore has been mentioned, I do once more appeal to the Admiralty to consider this point from its broadest aspects. I do not think the Singapore policy, the policy of creating a great battleship base on the Johore Channel, is a good one. We can defend the Straits of Malacca with long-range heavy guns, with mines, with torpedo-carrying aeroplanes and submarines, just as Heligoland Bight was defended, and no capital ships would attempt to go through. The creation of a great battleship base at Singapore is unnecessarily provocative. I am not going into the arguments at length, but the principal reasons against it are that it is too far from the most probable scene of action should war come in that area. Singapore is at too great a distance to be of use in any possible land attack by the Japanese coming by way of the Caroline Islands or the Marshall Islands —the steaming distance is too great for Singapore to intervene. The climate is unhealthy and it is an unsuitable place to be a permanent base for a great fleet. The money would be far better expended in bringing Sydney up to the position of a first-class naval dockyard. A fleet-in-being at Sydney would make any question of the invasion of Australia impracticable. In any case I do not believe in this bogey of the invasion of Australia, because no single Power except ours has the necessary merchant shipping to carry the Army required to reduce the Australian Army.
I think the whole thing is a bogey, but still, there it is. We know that it is part of our Constitution that the Navy must have a hypothetical enemy, and the Admiralty, now that the Germans are destroyed, have turned to the next most probable direction in which there may be an enemy in order to provide a bogey for the"man in the street" here at
home and in the Dominions. At Sydney there is a healthy climate, there are churches and dwelling houses and ail forms of entertainment and recreation, in fact, everything required for a permanent base is there already. In Singapore all these things will have to be created. I still say to the Admiralty that it is not too late. Apparently they have not started their graving dock, or have only done a little road building and so on, and it is not too late now to bring Singapore up to date as a cruiser basis. Let us fortify the Straits of Malacca, and establish a sufficient air base there; but if we are going to base a fleet on the Pacific, it should he at Sydney and not at Singapore. For that policy I believe we could get a contribution from the Australian Government. Already there are the beginnings of a shipbuilding industry in Australia, and this policy would help to develop it. As regards recruiting, on which the hon. and learned Member for Gillingham spoke, Australia is a magnificent recruiting ground, and as the country fills up, and the population increases, looking two or three generations ahead, it will become more and more valuable as a recruiting ground. By that policy, also, we should not annoy and irritate our very good friend Japan, which in a trying and difficult time in the late War, in the critical opening weeks, when much of the sympathy of the Japanese people was with Germany, because they admired German organisation and science, was faithful to us and our alliance. It made all the difference. By the policy I suggest we can remove a great cause of irritation to our old friend at a time when we need friends. Recent events on the Continent—in Switzerland—ought to have convinced the Admiralty of our need of friends wherever we can find them, and of true friends of the type of the Japanese. Before it be too late, and before we go further with this expenditure, I would again press on the Admiralty that they ought to reconsider their whole policy with the view of recasting it on the lines 1 suggest.

Mr. LOOKER: There is one point in connection with the project at Singapore which, as far as I know, has not been raised in. this House before, and I would like to direct the attention of my right hon. Friend to it. The present is an appropriate time, now that the project of a floating dock has been scrapped—
and very wisely, in my humble opinion, because of the great risk of transit and safety—and that the Admiralty are proceeding to establish a graving dock. Unless I am much mistaken, a graving dock will mean a large shore establishment, with a large dock staff, who must lie accommodated on shore for periods of two or three years at a time. Some of apse men will be married, and it will be inevitable that they should want their wives and children to be out there with them. However healthy Singapore may be for men—and there may be two opinions about that; it depends a good deal on their mode of life—there is not the slightest doubt that it is extremely unhealthy for women, and more so for children. It is not too great an exaggeration to say that hardly a white woman, in any station of life, has gone out there, and remained there for any length of time, who has not come away weaker in health, and, in the great majority of cases probably, she has never afterwards been able to recover the leeway. It is inevitable if there is to be a shore establishment that the men will desire to have their wives and children with them, and for some reasons it is probably desirable that they should have them there. On the other hand, it would be more in the interests of the wives and children that my right hon. Friend should not permit them to go out there, if he can see his way safely to take that line. If, however, they do go out I hope he will turn his attention to the question of providing sanatoria of some description in the East, where they may go, if not yearly, at least every other year. I have heard it suggested, from a not unauthoritative quarter, that the Admiralty have in contemplation the establishment of health stations in the Straits Settlements themselves. I do not think that would be at all satisfactory. To, begin with, it would be extremely expensive, and rather too difficult to find an appropriate spot, and even if one were found the change there from the conditions at Singapore would not be of the nature required to set up the women and children in health. The only appropriate place where they could get the necessary change would be further to the north, at Hong Kong, and I would ask my right hon. Friend seriously to consider the setting up in Hong Kong of sanatoria to which the women and children can go
every year. I would like to see them spend at least two or three months there in order that they may have some chance of resisting the deleterious and weakening effects of the Singapore climate.

Commander FANSHAWE: The hon. and gallant Member for Central Hull (Lieut.-Commander Kenworthy) has again trotted out that hardy annual, Singapore. Even the hon. Member for North Camberwell (Mr. Ammon), though he is very fond of it, left it alone to-day. It was discussed at length on more than one occasion last year, and I think the necessity for Singapore must be established to the satisfaction of everybody, or very nearly everybody in the House. The hon. and gallant Member said the Straits can be defended by long-range gun fire, by aircraft and mines, and likened the defence of the Straits to the defence of the Heligoland Bight at the time of the Great War, but he conveniently left out the one vital factor that really defended Heligoland Bight, and that was the great might of the German capital ships—the High Seas Fleet always lurking behind. They were always the real defence of the Heligoland Bight. This base at Singapore is being enlarged to take our capital ships, because unless they loom behind those comparatively light defences which everybody would put up in defending the Straits any enemy could pass through the Straits, or any enemy could avoid the Straits and pass to the south and thus get into the Indian Ocean. I should advise the hon. and gallant Member to go along Victoria Street to the Navy League offices and buy a map—there is an excellent one there—and he will see that Singapore is the vital point in our Imperial defences in that region.
There is another little point, and that is the fact that by the Washington Convention we are not entitled to enlarge or establish a naval base anywhere to the east of longitude of 110 degrees. He left that out. He said Singapore is too far away from Japan. It may be, but it is the point which we are allowed to use under the Washington Convention. He said, also, that the Australian fear of an invasion by Japan is a bogey. I think he, had better go to Australia, or, if he has been there, he had better go again, in order to find out what their feelings are. Here in this House we cannot judge
of the feelings of Australia in this matter. I wish to point out that the total expense of this dockyard is to be £750,000. Out of that total expense Hong Kong has contributed £150,000, and the Straits Settlements Government have given a valuable contribution of land.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: If the hon. and gallant Gentleman will look at page 166 of these Votes he will see that the cost of the naval base at Singapore is £9,414,000—that is the total cost, not counting machinery and various other items.

Commander FANSHAWE: I apologise to my hon. and gallant Friend. I may have made a mistake, but I was under the impression that no further sum than the £750,000 had been decided upon—at present. One of the chief points of the opposition to the Singapore base, in addition to those I have mentioned, is the fact that it causes irritation in Japan. The hon. Member for North Camberwell raised that point when the Naval Estimates were under discussion, but I think if he will look into all the utterances of responsible Japanese statesmen he will find they are quite easy in their minds about the establishment of this base, which is being established strictly under our Treaty rights, and I for one hope the Government will not be deterred from going on with this very necessary project to enable our Battle Fleet to operate in Eastern waters if that should be necessary at any time.

Mr. HORE-BELISHA: I wish to take advantage of the Prime Minister's presence to raise the position of housing and unemployment in my constituency arising out of the closing of the dockyards at Pembroke and Rosyth. The Prime Minister is not a hard-hearted man, and I feel sure I shall not appeal in vain for his sympathy in this matter. I hardly think he can realise the horror of the position in my constituency. My hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Uxbridge (Lieut.-Commander Burney) expressed the hope just now that the calamity which has fallen on my constituency might fall upon Chatham. I pray heaven it may not, because it does not require very much imagination to appreciate the distress and sorrow which
such a decision as that causes. I am glad that my hon. Friend, who always speaks so thoughtfully and suggestively, proposes that a Committee should be set up to consider the problem well in advance, so that proper preparations might be made for the safety and well-being of the inhabitants of the town. The Government, of course, are well entitled, from the strategical or the national point of view, to close any dockyard, as they may think fit.
7.0 P.M.
You cannot keep dockyards alive for charity, but what we complain of is the precipitancy with which that decision was taken. Year after year Members of this House have pressed, as my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Uxbridge (Lieut.-Commander Burney) pressed this afternoon in the case of Chatham, that the dockyards which were redundant should be closed. The Government had plenty of notice of the demand by the strategists that the dockyards should be closed. How comes it about that they can pass sentence of death on two whole communities without making any arrangement whatsoever for the comfort and well-being of the persons concerned? You have Rosyth derelict to-day and Pembroke a deserted city. They might be Sodom and Gomorrah for all the Government cares. The shopkeepers are ruined, the churches are closed down, the bells are not ringing, the persons who have invested their savings in houses there find themselves with their investments gone, and some of these persons are being poured into Devon-port at this moment.
What is the situation in that very town? You have a waiting list for the council houses of 3,000 people, which was closed two years ago, and 3,000 by no means expresses the demand for houses. The Admiralty inspector came down to that constituency two years ago, and what did he find? Street after street in which the roofs of the houses were not solid and the walls were cracking. These are the homes of the men who are manning the Navy, and who are building it. I fail to understand how the Admiralty can divorce itself from this matter. The First Lord of the Admiralty professes to be amazed at anybody suggesting that the Admiralty should interest itself in this matter. He says that there is the
Ministry of Health for that purpose. I put a question to the Prime Minister on this subject, and he allowed the Admiralty to answer it. The Admiralty said that it was the business of the Ministry of Health, while the Ministry of Health say it is the business of the Admiralty. I think I am not failing in my duty as the representative of that constituency when I ask the Prime Minister who is going to settle the controversy as to who is responsible for these men and their families. The Chancellor of the Exchequer, when he was First Lord of the Admiralty, acknowledged this responsibility when he said:
 The ultimate strategy of the British Navy consists in housing contented men in prosperous and healthy homes, from which the children, generation after generation, can return to the ships their fathers have taught them to honour.
He acknowledged that responsibility, and I ask the First Lord of the Admiralty to accept the responsibility of any private employer. What is happening down there? These men are having to pay 21s. a week for a single room in which they have to put the whole of their families. The housing situation is worse there than in any other town in England. The rain streams down through the roofs, and buckets are placed on the beds to catch the water. Babies are being born in these rooms. Thousands and thousands of houses are decaying, because they have not been properly built, and on top of this the First Lord of the Admiralty— through no fault of his own, because he is one of the most humane of men and I am raising this in order that something may be done—is pouring men into Devon-port. I ask him how many men have arrived, how many are yet still to arrive. I ask him if he absolutely refuses to utilise the equipment and skill of His Majesty's dockyards to build steel houses or make some other provision for these men. I ask if the Admiralty refuses to act, if the employment of these men is going to throw other people out of work. More men are to be employed, but the Parliamentary Secretary to the Admiralty tells me this afternoon that as a. result of these men arriving there will be more unemployed men in the town. The Government, by their policy, have added to the unemployment, the destitution, the misery and the sorrow of my constituency, and I appeal to the
Prime Minister to consider the seriousness of what the Government have done and to make some provision now, although it is very late in the day to do so.

Mr. BRIDGEMAN: I am sure that the housing situation in Devon-port is one that must appeal to the Prime Minister and everybody else in this House. I must at once point out, as I was about to do when the hon. Gentleman raised it before and I was called to order by the Chair, that the fact that there is a shortage of 5,000 houses in Devon-port, a town of 200,000 inhabitants, and the fact that some of these houses are streaming with water, as the hon. Gentleman, says, cannot be put to the door of the Admiralty. What we have done is to move about 500 men from Pembroke and Rosyth to Devon-port. About two-thirds of them are there now and about a third are to come. They have separation allowances, and therefore they need not necessarily take houses for their families, who can remain where they are while they go as lodgers. I quite agree that if there is anything we can do to mitigate the trouble we shall be very glad to do it, and I am investigating now the possibility of providing temporary accommodation, which may ease the situation at the moment.

Mr. HORE-BELISHA: Building steel houses?

Mr. BRIDGEMAN: I do not think that building steel houses in the dockyard is the proper way of dealing with the question, but if we can assist by providing any land or by using any temporary accommodation we have got we shall be very glad to do it. But, of course, the situation cannot be put right by anything we can do. If we build houses for these 500 men, there are still another 5,000 short, and the difficulty will be felt just the same. It is not right to put the whole retardation of the solution of the housing problem on the shoulders of the Admiralty. It is the fault of the local authority not having done anything before.
The hon. Member for North Camber-well (Mr. Ammon) asked me two or three questions which I should like to answer. First of all, he returned to what he said last, week, and to what he described as the change of policy on Singapore. He said that, at some pre-
vious time, it had been the policy, not of this Government, but of some previous Government, a Conservative Government, to build a graving dock first and a floating dock afterwards. I do not remember it, but, at any rate, I was not responsible for that decision, and I do not think it is an accurate description. I think the previous policy was stated to be to build a graving dock at Singapore, and I do not think—I am speaking from memory—that any floating dock was mentioned at all. Ever since I have been at the Admiralty I have said consistently and plainly that the important thing was to get a floating dock there, because it is a business that can be carried out in a short time, while the whole problem of a graving dock and all that accompanies it is a matter which would take seven to ten years, and the situation, therefore, would not be eased in the way of accommodating large vessels at Singapore until the whole programme was finished. We, therefore, thought it would be better to begin the floating dock, which would be finished in three years and will accommodate the largest of His Majesty's ships.
He asked me why we had decided to put in a new floating dock instead of using a German one. I mentioned it in my speech in introducing the Estimate. We had two German docks, one of which was utilised at Malta, and the other we intended to utilise for Singapore. In taking out the floating dock to Malta very much greater difficulties were experienced in towing her to her berth at Malta Harbour than we had anticipated. Fortunately, the difficulties were overcome, but they were such as to make us feel that it was a very risky and dangerous proposal to try and tow another floating dock all the way to Singapore, and for that reason we thought it better to have a new dock made, to be taken out in sections, while we hope to be able to sell the other German floating dock. He also asked about the reduction in Vote B with regard to Singapore. That is due to the slowing down of the storage of oil. The other question he asked was about the ordinary repairs. That is mainly brought about by a decision that we should not embark on repairs on very old ships which are near the end of their time, and possibly more repairs will be done at sea than have been done before.
The hon. and gallant Member for Uxbridge (Lieut.-Commander Burney) asked me about the conditions for the disposal of Pembroke Dockyard. We are certainly prepared to try and meet the suggestions that have been made. The conditions have already been published. I have not yet heard what the objections are, but we are very anxious to meet any reasonable objections which are brought to our notice. He also asked about Chatham. Another hon. Friend of mine the hon. Member for Gillingham (Sir G. Hohler) made the most spirited defence of Chatham. I cannot deal with that. At the same time, one must always bear in mind any possibility of reducing the establishment at Chatham or Sheerness if it can be done without detriment to the Navy.

Lieut.-Commander BURNEY: Will you set up a Committee?

Mr. BRIDGEMAN: I should not like to commit myself to setting up a Committee of business men. Business men, if they want to, should make their own suggestions, but I do not think I can promise to set up a Committee of business men to advise us at this moment.

Mr. WALSH: It has rather an ominous sound.

Mr. BRIDGEMAN: I cannot give a hard and fast undertaking about taking men on at Chatham, because we must have the men where they are most wanted. The hon. Member for South-Eastern Essex (Mr. Looker) spoke about the health of Singapore, but that is a question which has been under consideration for a long time. I may say that even now it is engaging our very careful attention and will be considered when we settle the final programme. I do not think there are any other questions that remain for me to answer. I know there is the general Singapore policy, but that was well defended by my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Stirling (Commander Fanshawe) and I agree very thoroughly with what he said on that subject.
Question," That this House doth agree with the Committee in the said Resolution," put, and agreed to.

Orders of the Day — REPORT [15TH MARCH].

Resolutions reported,

Orders of the Day — ARMY ESTIMATES, 1926–27.

1," That a number of Land Forces, not exceeding 159,400, all ranks, be maintained for the Service of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland at Home and Abroad, excluding His Majesty's Indian Possessions, during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1927."

2" That a sum, not exceeding £9,474,000, be granted to His Majesty to defray the Expense of the Pay, etc., of His Majesty's Army at Home and Abroad (exclusive of India), which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1927."

3." That a sum, not exceeding £3,944,000, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the Expense of Works, Buildings, and Lands, including Military and Civilian Staff, and other Charges in connection therewith, which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1927."

4." That a sum, not exceeding £3,633,000, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the

—
—
Gross Excess.
Appropriations in Aid.
Net Excess.



Class I.
£
s.
d.
£
s.
d.
£
s.
d.


Vote 7
…
Diplomatic and Consular Buildings
…
4,258
3
11
—

4,258
3
11



Class VI.





Vo[...]te 4
…
Ministry of Pensions
…
416,384
10
3
33,538
4
7
382,846
5
8











£
387,104
9
7

Mr. S. WALSH: I beg to move to leave out;" 159,400," and to insert instead thereof" 159,300."
I move this Amendment in order to draw attention to the abandonment by the Secretary of State for War of the recommendations of the Lawrence Committee, which was described by the right hon. Gentleman himself as one of the strongest Committees ever set up. He told us that this Committee was a combination of military, administrative, financial, and accounting experts. It is only a very few days ago since I asked this Committee to assent to the identical words used by the right hon. Gentleman on this subject. I do not propose now to repeat those words, but I ask the attention of the Committee to the conditions under which this Vote has been presented. I am bound to say that in my Parliamentary recollection this Vote con-

Expense of Rewards, Half-Pay, Retired Pay, Widows' Pensions, and other Non-effective Charges for Officers, which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1927."

5." That a sum, not exceeding £4,050,000, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the Expense of Chelsea and Kilmainham Hospitals, of Out-Pensions, Rewards for Distinguished Service, Widows' Pensions, and other Non-effective Charges for Warrant Officers, Non-Commissioned Officers, Men, etc,. which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1927."

6." That a sum, not, exceeding £240,000, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the Expense of Civil Superannuation, Compensation, and Additional Allowances, Gratuities, Injury Grants, etc., which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1927."

Orders of the Day — CIVIL SERVICES (EXCESSES), 1924–25.

7." That a sum, not exceeding £387,104 9s, 7d., be granted to His Majesty to make good Excesses on certain Grants for Civil Services for the year ended 31st day of March, 1925:

tains one of the most startling changes in the mind of a man who, after all, has been long years in the public service, and has shouldered a good many ministerial responsibilities. The right hon. Gentleman was Minister for War from 1921 to 1923. Again he acted as Minister for War at the end of 1924. He has seen three or four years of continuous application, though not a complete application, of a part of a system of which he himself was the strongest possible supporter. Ho told us himself that there is a great deal of saving to be effected by this scheme. The right hon. Gentleman, set up a Committee, one of the strongest possible, and I think the least he can do is to put that scheme into operation. In March, 1923, the then Under-Secretary of State for War said:
 The new system of Votes is built up on a scientific system of cost accounting, details of which are shown in the Army Account— this blue volume which I hold, and which
is published every year. The great aim of the system, apart from Parliamentary and War Office control, is to enable an officer to see and check expenditure on waste in his own sphere of responsibility, and it should thus enable real decentralisation of financial control which previously was far too much concentrated in the Finance Department of the War Office. I do not for a moment wish to suggest that the accounts in their present form are perfect. They are still in an experimental stage, but I do join issue with those who think, because formerly we had no effective system and contented ourselves with cash accounts, produced by the Royal Army Pay Corps, and nothing but cash accounts produced by them, those accounts being combined in different Votes under the War Office by a Civil Service personnel, that we ought on that account to be debarred from taking advantage of modern accountancy in controlling business."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 15th March, 1923; col. 1838, Vol. 161.]
I cannot imagine the Lawrence Report and a system so strongly recommended in that Report being explained in clearer and more emphatic language than was used by the Under-Secretary of State for War in the Government that came to an end in January, 1924. It is because this has such a great bearing upon Parliamentary control over the expenditure of one of the great Services of the nation that I am asking the House once again to pay attention to this matter. It is not a question of a few days or even of a few weeks, but it is a matter which has received public attention for the last eight years. The Select Committee on National Expenditure was set up in 1913. I am not going to speak as to the personnel of that Committee except to say that it was a very strong body and contained men of the highest financial and political reputation. I have always felt in this House that if a person wants to make a point he speaks of the strength of a particular Committee. Now that Committee which was appointed in 1918 recommended:
 That the Estimates and accounts should be grouped to show the objects rather than the subjects of expenditure and with carefully chosen units of cost.

In 1919 the generally accepted principle of double entry in book-keeping was put into operation partially at least by the War Department. In 1920 the scheme was approved by a Committee presided over by Major-General Sir Gerald Ellison and it was also approved by another Committee under Major-General Sir F. S. Robb in 1921. In 1922 the Secretary of
State for War himself set up the Lawrence Committee, and it is those recommendations and the system outlined by them very clearly in their Report which the right hon. Gentleman himself so powerfully recommended, and with which he now agrees to abandon after one of the most startling changes on the part of the right hon. Gentleman that I am conscious of during my 21 years of experience in this House. I have seen many but never one quite so startling as this one. I say that the reversion to the old system of accounts lessens materially the control both by the War Department itself and by this House over Army expenditure. That control was always ineffective, and I think that is admitted. A common point upon which there is no dispute is that even the War Office, through many long years up to the termination of the War had little effective control over millions of expenditure, and that which is true of the War Office as a Department is even more true of this House.

The maintenance of a business-like system of accounts based upon double entry book-keeping, and giving a, cash value to every item is indispensable for the economical management of any large business. Although the primary business of the Army is to build up an efficient fighting machine, it is in addition a very large business organisation, with stores, depots, hospitals, schools and factories throughout the Empire, and therefore a proper costing account system is equally necessary if efficient and economical management is to be secured by the nation. The real cost of any article produced any service performed, or any unit maintained cannot be obtained from the mere cash statements of expenditure which will appear in future Army Estimates and accounts. Extravagance and waste in the handling of stores, the use of buildings, the employment of men and material are incapable of effective check unless they involve an immediate cash outlay.

Information on these matters has been increasingly available to hon. Members during the last six years. It is not possible even to give reliable figures even for the productive establishments, as suggested by the right hon. Gentleman in his recent speech, where the services and supplies are rendered by one unit and are received by another. The case depends not, however, upon specific cash
savings as upon the fact that no true economy is possible unless the real costs are known. This is equally true of control by the War Office itself and of Parliamentary control by this House. Under the old system, which is now being restored, officers in command of units were never acquainted with the true value of the materials or personnel under their administration.

The new system, although partial in its at application, was gradually teaching the officers the value of the stores they were handling, and if extended as recommended by the Lawrence Committee, it would have inspired economy and efficiency in the management of their units. It is in respect of the proper valuation of stocks that the greatest possibility of economy exists. With a total stock of the value, probably, of scores of millions, much of which is almost certainly surplus to requirements, the necessity for constant review to prevent unnecessary additions, and waste of staff in preserving and guarding the same, is obvious. When every item of stock is definitely booked out to the unit at its true value, there is an effective check against loss, and an incentive is given to economy, which cannot be the case when goods are described as by the dozen or by the yard. The right hon. Gentleman stated, in his recent speech, that he does not desire his officers to be turned into accountants. For my own part, I think that that was a sheer evasion of the issue, and, really, was not worthy of the undoubted ability of the right hon. Gentleman. We heard, within a few minutes of the right hon. Gentleman making that statement, the hon. and gallant Member for Pontefract (Brigadier-General Brooke), speaking in this House from his knowledge as an officer, plead that young officers should be given some training in book-keeping and some knowledge of accounts before being given the responsibility of command. Commanding officers are now, by the disbandment of the Corps of Military Accountants, deprived of that expert accounting advice.

The SECRETARY of STATE for WAR (Sir Laming Worthington-Evans): That is quite wrong.

Mr. WALSH: Well, they are certainly deprived of the advice of the Corps of Military Accountants.

Sir L. WORTHINGTON-EVANS: I do not want to interrupt the right hon. Gentleman, but I thought he already knew that in every command there is to be an expert accounting adviser, late of the Corps of Military Accountants, now of the Army Pay Corps, and he will be in that command for the very purpose of giving advice on accountancy duties to officers in the command. He will lecture to them, and will do a great deal more to teach than has ever been done before.

Mr. WALSH: To the extent to which complete abolition is not being affected, I express myself indebted to the right hon. Gentleman.

Sir L. WORTHINGTON-EVANS: It is not being abolished, but, on the contrary, there will be an expenditure of £100,000 a year upon accountant officers.

Mr. WALSH: Upon the Royal Army Pay Corps already existing, plus, I take it, the number who are being retained from the Corps of Military Accountants.

Sir L. WORTHINGTON-EVANS: 170 are being retained from the Corps of Military Accountants.

Mr. WALSH: Will that have the effect of converting commanding officers of battalions and regiments into bookkeepers, to use the language of the right hon. Gentleman? The Public Accounts Committee, at a recent meeting, seemed, judging from their Report, to come with some reluctance to the abandonment of the recommendations made in the Lawrence Report, and they stated that there should be a complete annual valuation of the stocks. I notice that the Army Council, at a recent meeting, recorded what the right hon. Gentleman incorporated in his early Memorandum to the House, namely, that the War Office was considering the practicability of doing that. I really cannot reconcile the two things. I cannot understand how proper accounts can be prepared, not merely to satisfy the War Office officials, but to satisfy this House, that they are, as far as they can possibly be made, truthful and accurate accounts of the transactions that are going on within the Army, unless a valuation of stocks is taken as accurately as circumstances will permits. When it is said that the War Office, under the leadership of the right hon. Gentleman, will inquire into the practicability of doing so, I think that is treating this
House in a rather cavalier manner. I am sure that the lack of a valuation of stocks must result in accounts coming before us in an incomplete and halting form—I will not say imperfect, and I will not say falsified, but certainly not giving us the truth as this House has a right to expect it. It is of the utmost importance that Parliament should know the value of the stocks that are being carried by the War Department, and any important variation in value or any transfer of appreciable extent.
It came before this House some years ago, and, indeed, it came to the open knowledge of the nation, that military material to the value of many millions had been passed over to General Denikin, and yet not a single word of it appeared at all in the old form of accounts, because, of course, no transaction took place in the year of transfer. I see nothing at all to prevent a repetition of that kind of case under the reversion to the old system of accounts. I am not prepared to say at this moment—it certainly was not a matter in which our Government appeared to any great credit—the exact magnitude of the value of the stores transferred to General Denikin, but I think I remember sufficiently to say that it ran into well over £40,000,000. I have not been able to trace it, and I am not sure whether the right hon. Gentleman could trace it.

Sir L. WORTHINGTON-EVANS: It was all disclosed to the House at the time.

Mr. WALSH: At what time?

Sir L. WORTHINGTON-EVANS: At the time the transfer was made.

Mr. WALSH: I am sure the right hon. Gentleman is answering, to the best of his ability, truthfully, but I am certain that in point of fact it was not disclosed until a very considerable period after, nor did it appear in the accounts at all at the time of the transfer.

Sir L. WORTHINGTON-EVANS: I do not want to be misunderstood. It was disclosed to the House, though not on the accounts, because, as the right hon. Gentleman says, it would not have appeared on the accounts. Had it appeared, however, on the accounts, the House would not have known it any quicker than they did know it as it was.

Mr. GILLETT: Is it not the case that the Public Accounts Committee complained of the fact that the information came so late, even to the Public Accounts Committee, that there was no chance of any public opinion being expressed upon it?

Sir L. WORTHINGTON-EVANS: As the hon. Gentleman knows, the accounts of the War Office do not get before the Public Accounts Committee until long after the close of the year. My point was that this transfer of stocks was disclosed to the House before the House would have heard of it had it been included in the accounts.

Mr. GILLETT: I suggest to the right hon. Gentleman that the point was that it never became public until it came before the Public Accounts Committee, long after, as the right hon. Gentleman says, the time when it ought to have been known.

Mr. WALSH: That is exactly my point. I am quite sure the right hon. Gentleman is answering, to the best of his ability, truthfully, and I do not charge him with in any way evading what he admits to he the fact; but I do know from my own memory, and from my knowledge as a Member of this House, that it was not until a very considerable time after the transfer had been effected that it came to the knowledge of Members of this House, and I say that under a proper costing system it would have come before us within the following year at the latest. In these circumstances, I feel sure that my memory is much more accurate than the recital of the right hon. Gentleman. As every hon. Member knows, this House has only a very diluted and imperfect control over the expenditure of the nation. That control was becoming less and less as the years went on, but, in 1918, the Select Committee on National Expenditure, in its Report, directed attention particularly to the Army Services, and successive Committees, finishing with the most powerful Committee of all, the Lawrence Committee, set up by the right hon. Gentleman himself, showed how businesslike arrangements could be introduced into the Army administration, how control could be more effectively secured, and how the regimental commanders could themselves take on responsibility which they were perfectly willing
to accept. It is not true to say that they complained of being spied upon, and that they were unwilling to accept this responsibility. I believe the great majority of regimental commanders are prepared to accept this responsibility, and to do their best as responsible men, in the interests of the nation, to see that the accounts are properly kept. It is because of the reversion to an old system, dating right back to the earlier part of the 17th century, which is hopelessly antiquated and utterly unfitted to give businesslike and effective control to this House, that I move a reduction of the Vote by 100 men.

Mr. PETHICK-LAWRENCE: Before the Minister replies, I should like to put to him one or two questions on this point. With regard to the main issue, namely, the adoption in its entirety of the Lawrence Report, that involves at the same time considerations other than more accountancy. It involves the question of the devolution to the units of the whole spending apparatus and control in the Army, and, so far as that is concerned, not having adequate knowledge to enable me to discuss it, I propose to leave it on one side. I do desire, however, to press the Minister for categoric in formation with regard to all the other part of the cost accounting system which is not involved in that transference from the centre to the units. In the Report of the Public Accounts Committee, very great stress was laid upon the valuation of stocks. I want the Minister to tell us whether the valuation of the stocks is now proceeding, and will be completed. It was shown to us in the Public Accounts Committee that, although the valuation of stocks had been started, it had been to a, certain extent left in midair, and that only a very small part of the stocks had, as a matter of fact, been valued. I felt at the time, and I feel to-day, that, unless that valuation is completed, there is very great room for leakage. No business firm would be content to value part of their stocks and leave a very large further part unvalued, because they would recognise that great leakage might arise from that. Therefore, I would press the Minister to tell us specifically and categorically whether the valuation of stocks is now being pushed to its extreme limit, so that we shall have in future a complete valuation
of stocks, and shall know exactly what is taking place from year to year. In the second place, there is the question of the cost accounting of all the divisions of the War Office to which cost accounting can be applied, without going as far as transference to the units, as recommended by the Lawrence Committee. The Public Accounts Committee felt very strongly indeed on that point, and in their Report urged the War Office to have the fullest possible cost accounting in all the departments of the War Office to which it was capable of being applied. I want also to know whether we may in future have throughout the whole of these parts of the War Office administration the full system of cost accounting, because in my opinion it is only in that way that we can arrive at anything like the efficiency we are entitled to have in the Army.

Mr. GILLETT: I should like to ask the Secretary of State a few questions in regard to these Estimates because I cannot see, from the way in which they are presented, that they quite tally with the statements he made a few days ago. The Treasury estimated that cost accounting might be used for various parts of the Army dealing with an expenditure of something like £11,500,000. The list of departments that they recommended might come under cost accounting was not agreed to by the Army, and I should like to ask, in the first place, whether the Government have now accepted the full list of departments that were recommended by the Treasury and whether they are prepared at present to adapt cost accounting to the whole of that list. One of the departments the Public Accounts Committee certainly recommended ought to come under the cost accounting system was the educational institutions. It is rather difficult for us to decide from these accounts how far cost accounting is being applied to the educational institutions. I find that, according to the information given in the Estimates, a few of the schools seemingly are treated in one way and a far larger number are treated in quite a different way.
For instance, at Woolwich College the estimate per cadet per year is stated at £521. The same applies to Sandhurst and two or three other educational departments. But when you come to a long string of other schools, as they are termed,
of various kinds dealing with special subjects, we find that the Estimates are presented in quite a different way from what they were a year ago. For about 20 so-called schools or colleges the facts and figures are not being given in the same way they were a year ago. Does that mean that these various colleges are not put on the system of cost accounting, or are they going back to the old system which was in force before the new system came into being? It looks to me as if the Government are really working on two lines. I have little doubt that the Army Council would really like to have gone back to the original system altogether and that they are being driven along in this direction by public opinion and the Public Accounts Committee, and in all probability they intend to do as little cost accounting as they possibly can. My belief is that about 20 of the schools have really been thrown out of the system of cost accounting and four or five of the big schools are being kept in. I should like to know if I am right in my conclusion.
For instance, there is one school where this year the estimate is given as £31,000 odd. Last year the total estimate came to something like £57,000 because it included such items as stores. If these schools are being carried on under cost accounting, surely the same information should have been given this year. In another school, the School of Artillery, this year the total amount is only £58,000. Last year the gross figure came to £212,000 because the ammunition, costing about £120,000, was included. One of the items that head the list of departments that the Army has decided to do cost accounting with was bakeries. In this year's Estimates you find nothing about Army bakeries. There is nothing whatever except some notes put down on what might be called the pink side of the account, and the figures given there are chiefly the figures for last year. It will be quite impossible, as far as I can see, to make out anything in regard to bakeries from the figures which have been supplied this year. Last year there were full particulars of the estimated cost. This year there is practically no information at all. There are thirty electricity stations under the care of the War Office and information in regard to them might very well have been supplied, but
all the information is so merged in bakeries and institutions of that kind that it is practically impossible to say how much is being spent on electricity or what the cost is likely to be.
It is true that on the pink sheet information is given in regard to electricity last year. I am wondering if the War Office is giving up the cost-accounting system for electricity, and whether it will be quite impassible for them a year hence to give us even the information for the year past. If, on the other hand, they are carrying it on— and this applies equally to what I said in regard to the schools—why cannot the Estimates be exactly on the same footing as those supplied last year? The Army seems to have 60 pumping stations. I am not sufficiently acquainted with Army methods to know why they have pumping stations, but the information one gathers is that they have 60 pumping stations. The financial information is practically nil to anyone looking through the accounts, and stands on exactly the same footing as the other Departments I have mentioned. The Estimate for the clothing factory this year is £138,000. Last year it was for something like £400,000, because we were given the estimated cost of materials. The information given last year was not very important, but, still, it all strengthens the point I am raising. If the system of accounting as regards these different Departments is the same, why has the Estimate been altered?
In his speech a few days ago the Minister referred to a point which had been raised by a member of the Public Accounts Committee, who stated that the valuation of clothing in the Army stores amounted to about £25,000,000. He told us he immediately had inquiries made, and telegraphed all over the world in order to find out exactly what was the value of the clothing in the Army stores. He stated that the value was not £25,000,000 but £5,900,000, or a fifth of the sort of case that had been built up by the advocates of cost accounting. Some of us in the Public Accounts Committee laid great importance upon the valuation of these stores. We were told the Army had stores of the nominal value of £100,000,000 to £110,000,000. We have also been told that during the six years these two departments have been in
existence they have, I think, been put at the value of £6,000,000, and the other £100,000,000 was not the value of the stores when they were bought but some nominal value which has been attached to them and checked afterwards rather by quantitative than by actual value. The importance of the valuation of stores was laid great stress upon by General Lawrence, who said he thought the old system was absolutely worthless, and, after all, his is an opinion to which some attention might be attached.
The Secretary of State was asked about this clothing which was supposed to have gone up to £25,000,000. He now tells us it was only £6,000,000. As a matter of fact, whoever asked him the question—I am not quite sure who it was—had some grounds to go upon because in the printed Army accounts we find on 1st April, 1922, there was clothing valued at £28,000,000, and if you add on to that the fresh amounts manufactured, and make a deduction on the other side for issues and so on, you find that at the end of the year there was £26,600,000. If you start the new year with that figure and add on the right adjustments on both sides, you find at the end of 1924 there was nearly £26,000,000 worth, going from what was the printed figure in the Army accounts for two years before. It is impossible for us to follow it much further, but if it is a fact that there was £26,000,000 worth on March 31st, 1924, what has happened to the £20,000,000? Are we to understand that in two years it depreciated £20,000,000? Are we to understand that it is a depreciation that has gone on year after year and that at present these stocks are only valued at £6,000,000? It seems to rue at any rate that if we are to accept the figure given by the Secretary of State only a few days ago there is a sum of £20,000,000, and we should like to know where it has gone to in the meantime.
Another thing we were told was that it was impossible to follow this sum of £100,000,000 of which, at any rate, whatever the value of the stocks may have been, about £25,000,000 must have been responsible for clothing. For six years they had only been able to value about £3,000,000 worth. When the Secretary of State wanted the clothing valued, which was nominally £25,000,000, he got it valued in six months because he came to us just
before the summer holidays—probably between now and the end of July—and said he had £25,000,000 worth of these stores valued. In other words a quarter of the £100,000,000 has gone. Supposing it was a fact that they ought only to have stood at £6,000,000, the officials of the War Office could have told us that in the Public Accounts Committee, and that would have settled the question of the £20,000,000. Why cannot the War Office tackle the other £75,000,000 in the same way that the Secretary of State has tackled this £25,000,000? He has got rid of the £20,000,000 somehow in a very short time. Can he solve the mystery of the other £75,000,000? There is very little given in the book as to what the stores are to-day. We were certainly told in the Public Accounts Committee that stores were nominally £100,000,000. What is the value of them to-day? That is a most important point in connection with this system of accounting, because if you go back to the old system of accounts where you practically ignore the amount of stores that are going to be used for each year you have laid before you false figures as to what is the actual expenditure of the Army in any year.
8.0 P.M.
Until we take into account where the stores are being used, or the amount of increase in the stores, we cannot know the exact figure for the cost of the Army during the year. We have no under-taking in this House, and the Public Accounts Committee have no undertaking from the representatives of the War Office, that they have the slightest intention of valuing these stocks. I do not think they have the slightest intention of valuing the stocks. I do not think they have the slightest intention of bringing the value of these stocks into the Army accounts. I believe their intention is, as soon as possible, and as soon as the House of Commons will allow them to do it, to go back to the old methods and to bury the information which has been gathered in past years under figures such as those which have been presented in these Estimates in connection with schools, bakeries and electricity departments, which are practically worthless for Members of the House of Commons.
It is an amazing thing to me that Members of this House should be spending an enormous amount of time talking about economy and making themselves
busy over a comparatively small sum of £200,000 for sports grounds and leaving this most important matter in regard to economy, this system of accounts which are presented to us by the War Office, upon which economy alone can he effected. Unless we know what has actually been spent, the ordinary Member of this House cannot recommend economy of any kind, yet the House and the public and the newspapers, all busy with economy, are quite indifferent whilst the War Office is going back into the old method of keeping accounts, a system which makes it utterly impossible for Members of this House to know what we are spending and which makes it impossible to keep the check that would have been possible in regard to the War Office by the system of accounts which is being discontinued.

Mr. TOWNEND: There is one point on which I should like information, and that is the basis of compensation which is being paid in respect of the Corps of Military Accountants. We find that, as far as permanent officers are concerned, a sum of £100 for each year of service is given, with a sum varying, according to rank, which in the case of a captain means something like £2,000 compensation for loss of office in the Corps of Military Accountants. This basis of compensation will place many former members of that corps in a very difficult position. A sum of £2,000 for a man who left a profession in order to enter the Corps of Military Accountants is a very small sum compared with what is given in other branches where compensation is paid under the instructions of this House.
It is when we come to the non-commissioned officers and men that the case is particularly hard. We find that they are only to receive an amount based upon their un-expired service. In many cases that means that men who have served 10 or 11 years in the Corps, anticipating when they entered the Service that they would have an opportunity of qualifying for a minimum pension based upon 14 years' experience in the Service, with a maximum pension on the 21 years basis, are being turned away with a paltry sum approximating to £110. When these men entered the Service they left a civil profession in many cases, and
to ask them to return in the present state of commerce to situations where their profession is overloaded with applicants is a very hard state of affairs, especially when we compare their position with the legislation for which this House is responsible respecting railway servants.
Under the Railways Act, it was definitely laid down that if as a result of redundancy members of the railway service were dispensed with, they were to be allowed a fairly satisfactory amount of compensation. In cases where men in the railway service, a private enterprise, are turned off because they are redundant they are getting anything from four to five times the amount that is now offered to non-commissioned officers and men of the Corps of Military Accountants. I suggest that the position ought to be reviewed by the Minister, if possible, so that in addition to a lump sum—which in the case of the railway men amounts to something like £500 to £600—these non-commissioned officers and men should be given a pension which would enable them to live a decent kind of life until they can find a entry into business circles once again. It is because the present amount is absolutely inadequate that I would like to know the basis on which the right hon. Gentleman calculates the compensation now paid.

Sir L. WORTHINGTON-EVANS: I rather despair of convincing the right hon. Member for Ince (Mr. Walsh) regarding the action I have taken and the motives which led me to take that action in regard to reducing the Corps of Military Accountants and unifying the system of accountancy in the Army. He calls attention, for the second time, to the fact that I was very much in favour, if it could be put into operation, of making the unit cost accounting basis the basis upon which to build the accounts of the Army. I told him so in the Committee. I was in favour of it. I started very much predisposed with the idea that if one could apply to the public service the same sort of system which has been found good in business life it might be of great advantage in regard to the Army. It was for that reason that I appointed the Lawrence Committee so that we might have further advice upon the subject, because there were great difficulties.
Do not let the right hon. Gentleman forget that the so-called cost accounting system, which was never put into complete operation, had been going on for three if not four years before I first went to the War Office, and I was advised and I found that there was great waste of money in the finance and accountant's department in the overlapping of the two systems which were then running side by side, and which caused a still further expenditure in regard to the officials of the Finance Department, whose employment was to reconcile the results of the two systems. It was a thing which in my judgment ought not to have been allowed to go on. I wish that when the Lawrence Report came in I had been able to accept the Report and follow their advice, but they never at any time and no one at any time completed a unit system of accounting as a practical measure which any department could adopt. To put it into full operation requires decentralisation of financial control right down to the unit.

Mr. WALSH: That is what I mean.

Sir L. WORTHINGTON-EVANS: I know, but it is not practicable. If the right hon. Gentleman had been in my place he would have been up against exactly the same difficulty which I was in, and he would have found, as I found, after taking a, great deal of personal trouble about it, that it was not practicable; it could not be done, or if it could be done in any circumstances whatever it would have meant throwing an enormous amount of work upon the officer commanding the unit, which was not within his function, and ought not to be thrown upon him, In addition, it would have meant an expenditure of £400,000 a year as against the expenditure of £100,000 a year which I am providing for. It would have cost an extra £300,000 a, year in annual expenditure. In these circumstances I was bound not to pursue the matter upon the lines of unit accounting, and I was bound further to put an end to the duplication of work that was going on. I have not the slightest doubt that if the right hon. Gentleman had been in my place he would have done exactly the same thing. I do not think I need argue the matter further, because I argued it at length in Committee
I will now turn to the specific questions which have been put to me by hon. Members opposite. The hon. Member for West Leicester (Mr. Pethick-Lawrence) and the hon. Member for Finsbury (Mr. Gillett) raised the question of the valuation of stocks. There was a valuation of stocks, as they will remember, until 1908, but in 1908 the Public Accounts Committee considered the question of that valuation, and advised that it was no good to them, to the House, or to the War Office. Therefore, it was scrapped. I am asked now whether I will give an undertaking that the valuation of stocks shall take place. All I can say to hon. Members is that I am having the matter looked into in detail at the present time. Do they realise what the proposition is? There are 70,000, so I am advised, different headings which would have to be valued, and they are dispersed all over the world between 60 and 70 depots. It is obvious that a valuation of that sort, to be kept up to date—an annual valuation it would have to be—would be very expensive. If it is worth while, I will spend money on it, but if it is not worth while I do not want to spend money on it. I am having the matter looked into, and I am being advised in regard to it. Presently, I shall have to decide whether it is worth while to proceed with such valuation, in which case I will do so, or whether it is not worth while.
In regard to consumable stores, I think, and I have asked for advice in regard to it, that they are on a different footing. There is great advantage, I think, in being able to say to the House that the consumable stores consumed in the year are exactly all that we have paid for and that we have just as big a stock at the end of the year as we had at the beginning. Then hon. Members will know that there is not concealed an expenditure in stores in addition to cash. I want to get that system, if I can, without any great expense. I doubt very much whether in the case of other stores, warlike stores, it is worth while piling up each year entries showing that an 18-pound gun is worth a little less this year because it is a little worn out, and a. little less next year, and then, because in the third year we propose to re-line it, it is to be entered up again. I doubt very much whether a valuation of that class of stores will give the information which the House desires.
With regard to clothing. It was said before the Public Accounts Committee that it was valued at £25,000,000. I am not suggesting that anybody invented that figure, and I have no doubt that it was derived from figures in the books of estimates, but the actual fact is that their valuation is £5,900,000 and not; £25,000,000. The hon. Member asks what has happened to the difference. The truth is that the £25,000,000 was a guess figure inserted by the cost accountants. They had to get some figure to start with, and they put in £25,000,000. It never was £25,000,000. I do not know what it was at the time, but that is one of the absurdities which comes from this kind of accounting. Until you have the actual valuation of all stores, it is impossible to debit the unit and credit the store account with an actual amount and until there was a valuation they took a figure—

Mr. WALSH: Surely the Ordnance officers in the depot would have some idea as to the cost?

Sir L. WORTHINGTON-EVANS: Of course they had some idea. I do not say they wrote in £25,000,000 without consulting anybody. No doubt they consulted with those in charge of the clothing stores, and together they came to this figure. I have no doubt it was done with the utmost bona fides, but the actual figure as to the value of the clothing is the figure I have given.

Mr. PETHICK-LAWRENCE: The right hon. Gentleman is missing the point. The point is that if £25,000,000 was the figure estimated, and it is actually £6,000,000, surely that does reveal the importance of proper accounting?

Sir L. WORTHINGTON-EVANS: I do not disagree with that, but what is important to the Army is that they should know they have so many suits of clothing of such and such sizes and so many boots of such and such sizes. It really is not a matter of so much importance from the Army point of view whether they are carried in the books at 10s. each or 12s. each.

Mr. PETHICK-LAWRENCE: It is not a question of 10s. and 12s. It is a question of £25,000,000 or £6,000,000, and it must be of great importance to know
whether the things are so valuable as to be worth £25,000,000 or so inferior as to be worth £6,000,000.

Sir L. WORTHINGTON-EVANS: That is quite a different subject. The important question to the Army is whether it is serviceable stuff, and it is not important in that sense whether these stores are carried in the books at 10s. or 12s. The important thing is that the Army should know they have so many suits of this size and so many of that, and so on. Therefore it is not so much a question of valuation by money as a question of inspection, and it is the duty of officers to inspect and see that these stores are kept up as serviceable stores. In the stock accounts that are kept the accounts show whether the stores are serviceable or otherwise and all the time repairs go on of all those which are not serviceable and which can be made serviceable. However, I would like for the sake of completeness to have a valuation but I cannot do any more than undertake that the question shall be examined with the object of getting the valuation if we can.
It will be conditioned as to whether it is worth while spending the money. The hon. Member for Finsbury asked whether in future we were to have cost accounts of bakeries and electricity undertakings. Bakeries are being costed and electricity and fire stations are being costed; schools are not. If at any time we want the actual cast of any school we have a cost accountant available who will investigate the accounts of that school and bring out the figures that are required. I am sure the right hon. Gentleman opposite cannot realise what the 170 cost accountants and their assistants are required to do. Let me say what they are going to do. Certain of these productive works, like bakeries and electricity stations, are going to be regularly costed. There will be a resident cost accountant either actually on the works or at a convenient place between one or two works which will be within his charge. In addition, in each command there will he a fully qualified accounting officer, with an assistant, and in that command he will be responsible for the various establishments that are being costed in the command, and will have other duties.

Mr. PETHICK-LAWRENCE: I am sorry to interrupt again. The right hon. Gentleman said certain of these things will be costed. The Public Accounts Committee was most particular on that paint and expressed the opinion that it ought not to be" certain" but" all" of these things and all the time. It is no use cost accounting one thing this year and another thing next year. They should be cost accounted all the time, every year. I understood the right hon. Gentleman was abiding by the decision of the Public Accounts Committee and I should like to know whether we are going to have all these things costed each year or only a certain number of them one year and a certain number another year.

Mr. GILLETT: If the right hon. Gentleman will look at the Woolwich Account he will find there is an estimated cost of £521 a year for the 220 cadets and an estimated total cost of the Royal Military Academy at Woolwich of £114,000. Does not this account mean that Woolwich is being costed? The information given is much the same as that given last year, and it is the sort of information that is necessary. There are about 20 of these schools in colleges it which that information is not given, and it is one of the things I should like the Secretary of State for War to explain. I should also like to ask him why, if bakeries and electricity are being costed, we cannot have the Estimates put in exactly the same way as was the case last year. They were infinitely clearer than the present accounts.

Sir L. WORTHINGTON-EVANS: It may be possible —I do not know—to do so next year. It may be possible on the result of the cost accounting this year of these productive activities to give more information than has been given this year. I think that is highly probable. Hon. Members must remember that these Estimates are presented in this form for

the first time this year, and if I can give greater details next year I will certainly try to do so. The hon. Member for West Leicester (Mr. Pethick-Lawrence) asked me whether there were any of these activities to be costed all the time.

Mr. PETHICK-LAWRENCE: All of them.

Sir L. WORTHINGTON-EVANS: Not all of them. The productive ones are to be costed all the time. I gave a list the other day. Some will be costed only in the sense of an inspection. Just as we now send to inspect, so we will send a cost accountant down to go into the figures and cost of a particular operation. Those are, generally speaking, the minor operations, not the productive ones. That will apply to the smaller hospitals. The larger hospitals will he costed all the time, and we shall have comparative figures all the time. The cost accountants in the commands, besides looking after those activities which are being costed there, are at the disposal of officers in that command for the purpose of advice on any accounting question. An officer can go to the accounting officer in the command not only on public accounts but even on regimental accounts where that officer commanding is responsible. He can go for advice to the accounting officer, and in that way I hope that a much better knowledge of accountancy will spread through the Army, because it will cover a larger field even than any cost accountant does. I have answered all the questions that have been put. I believe that on the whole this economy is a real economy, a reduction in expenditure of £300,000 a year, and one which can be carried out without interfering with the efficiency of the Army.

Question put," That '159,400' stand part of the Resolution."

The House divided: Ayes, 179; Noes, 78.

Division No. 99.]
AYES.
[8.29 p.m.


Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel
Barclay-Harvey, C. M.
Brown, Brig.-Gen. H.C.(Berks,Newb'y)


Agg-Gardner, Rt. Hon. Sir James T.
Barnett, Major Sir Richard
Buckingham, Sir H.


Albery, Irving James
Barnston, Major Sir Harry
Bull, Rt. Hon. Sir William James


Amery, Rt. Hon. Leopold C. M. S.
Benn, Sir A. S. (Plymouth, Drake)
Burney, Lieut.-Com. Charles D.


Applin, Colonel R. V. K.
Blrchall, Major J. Dearman
Butler, Sir Geoffrey


Apsley, Lord
Blundell, F. N.
Caine, Gordon Hall


Atkinson, C.
Boothby, B. J. G.
Chadwick, Sir Robert Burton


Baldwin, Rt Hon. Stanley
Bourne, Captain Robert Croft
Chapman, Sir S.


Balfour, George (Hampstead)
Brass, Captain W.
Churchill, Rt. Hon. Winston Spencer


Balniel, Lord
Brocklebank, C. E. R.
Clarry, Reginald George


Banks, Reginald Mitchell
Brooke, Brigadier-General C. R. I.
Cochrane, Commander Hon. A. D.


Cockerill, Brigadier-General G. K.
Hopkins, J. W. W.
Rawson, Sir Alfred Cooper


Cope, Major William
Hopkinson, A. (Lancaster, Mossley)
Remnant, Sir James


Crookshank, Col. C. de W. (Berwick)
Hopkinson, Sir A. (Eng. Universities)
Rice, Sir Frederick


Crookshank,Cpt. H.(Lindsey,Gainsbro)
Howard, Captain Hon. Donald
Richardson, Sir P. W. (Sur'y, Ch'ts'y)


Curzon, Captain Viscount
Hudson, Capt. A. U. M. (Hackney, N.)
Roberts, Samuel (Hereford, Hereford)


Davidson, J.(Hertf'd, Hemel Hempst'd)
Hudson, R. S. (Cumb'l'nd, Whiteh'n)
Robinson, Sir T. (Lancs., Stretford)


Davidson, Major-General Sir J. H.
Huntingfield, Lord
Ropner, Major L.


Davies, Dr. Vernon
Jackson, Lieut.-Col. Rt. Hon. F. S.
Ruggles-Brise, Major E. A.


Davies, Maj. Geo. F. (Somerset, Yeovil)
Jackson, Sir H. (Wandsworth, Cen'l)
Rye, F. G.


Davies, Ellis (Denbigh, Denbigh)
Jacob, A. E.
Salmon Major I.


Dawson. Sir Philip
James, Lieut.-Colonel Hon. Cuthbert
Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham)


Eden, Captain Anthony
Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth)
Samuel, Samuel (W'dsworth, Putney)


Edmondson, Major A J.
Joynson-Hicks, Rt. Hon. Sir William
Sandeman, A. Stewart


Elliot, Captain Walter E.
Kennedy, A. R. (Preston)
Sanders, Sir Robert A.


Evans, Captain A. (Cardiff, South)
King, Captain Henry Douglas
Sanderson, Sir Frank


Everard, W. Lindsay
Knox, Sir Alfred
Sandon, Lord


Fairfax, Captain J. G.
Lamb, J. Q.
Savery, S. S.


Falle, Sir Bertram G.
Lane Fox, Col. Rt. Hon. George R.
Shaw, Capt. W. W. (Wilts, Westb'y)


Falls, Sir Charles F.
Lloyd, Cyril E. (Dudley)
Shepperson, E. W.


Fanshawe, Commander G. D.
Locker-Lampson, Com. O.(Handsw'th)
Simms, Dr. John M. (Co. Down)


Fermoy, Lord
Loder, J. de V.
Smith, R. W. (Aberd'n & Kinc'dine,C.)


Fielden, E. B.
Looker, Herbert William
Smith-Carington, Neville W.


Fremantle, Lt.-Col. Francis E.
Macintyre, Ian
Somerville, A. A. (Windsor)


Gates, Percy
McLean, Major A.
Sprot, Sir Alexander


Gibbs. Col. Rt. Hon. George Abraham
Macmillan, Captain H.
Stanley, Hon. O. F. G. (Westm'eland)


Gilmour, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir John
McNeill, Rt. Hon. Ronald John
Steel, Major Samuel Strang


Glyn, Major R. G. C.
Margesson, Captain D.
Storry-Deans, R.


Gower, Sir Robert
Merriman, F. B.
Streatfeild, Captain S. R.


Grattan-Doyle, Sir N.
Meyer, Sir Frank
Strickland, Sir Gerald


Greene, W. P. Crawford
Milne, J. S. Wardlaw-
Stuart, Crichton-, Lord C.


Grotrian, H. Brent
Mitchell. S. (Lanark, Lanark)
Stuart, Hon. J. (Moray and Nairn)


Gunston, Captain D. W.
Mitchell, W. Foot (Saffron Walden)
Tasker, Major R. Inigo


Hacking, Captain Douglas H.
Moore, Lieut. Colonel T. C. R. (Ayr)
Thom, Lt.-Col. J. G. (Dumbarton)


Hall, Capt. W. D'A. (Brecon & Rad.)
Moore, Sir Newton J.
Thompson, Luke (Sunderland)


Hanbury, C
Moore-Brabazon, Lieut.-Col. J. T. C.
Thomson, F. C. (Aberdeen, South)


Harland, A.
Moreing, Captain A. H.
Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement


Harvey, Major S. E. (Devon, Totnes)
Nail, Lieut.-Colonel Sir Joseph
Wallace, Captain D. E.


Haslam, Henry C.
Newman, Sir R. H. S. D. L. (Exeter)
Watson, Rt. Hon. W. (Carlisle)


Hawke, John Anthony
Nicholson, Col. Rt. Hn.W.G. (Ptrsf'id.)
Williams, Com. C. (Devon, Torquay)


Headlam, Lieut.-Colonel C. M.
Oakley, T.
Wilson, Sir C. H. (Leeds, Central)


Henderson, Lieut.-Col. V. L. (Bootle)
O'Connor, T. J. (Bedford, Luton)
Wilson, R R. (Stafford, Lichfield)


Henn, Sir Sydney H.
Owen, Major G.
Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel George


Hennessy, Major J. R. G.
Percy, Lord Eustace (Hastings)
Withers, John James


Herbert, Dennis (Hertford, Watford)
Perkins, Colonel E. K.
Womersley, W. J.


Hills, Major John Waller
Peto, Basil E. (Devon, Barnstaple)
Woodcock, Colonel H. C.


Hogg, Rt. Hon. Sir D. (St.Marytebone)
Peto, G. (Somerset, Frome)
Worthington-Evans. Rt. Hon. Sir L.


Hohler, Sir Gerald Fitzroy
Philipson, Mabel



Holland, Sir Arthur
Power, sir John Cecil
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—


Homan. C. W. J.
Price, Major C. W. M.
Lord Stanley and Captain Bowyer.


Hope, Sir Harry (Forfar)
Raine, W.



NOES.


Adamson, Rt. Hon. W. (Fife, West)
Henderson, Right Hon. A. (Burnley)
Shiels, Dr. Drummond


Alexander, A. V. (Sheffield, Hillsbro')
Henderson, T. (Glasgow)
Short, Alfred (Wednesday)


Ammon, Charles George
Hirst, G. H.
Slesser, Sir Henry H.


Attlee, Clement Richard
Hore-Belisha, Leslie
Smith, H. B. Lees- (Keighley)


Barker, G. (Monmouth, Abertilliary)
Johnston, Thomas (Dundee)
Smith, Rennie (Penistone)


Barr, J.
Kelly, W. T.
Snell, Harry


Batey, Joseph
Kennedy, T.
Snowden, Rt. Hon. Philip


Bowerman, Rt. Hon. Charles W.
Lee, F.
Stephen, Campbell


Bromfield, William
Lindley, F. W.
Taylor, R. A.


Bromley, J.
Lowth, T.
Townend, A. E.


Cape, Thomas
Lunn, William
Trevelyan, Rt. Hon. C. P.


Charleton, H. C.
Mackinder, W.
Viant, S. P.


Cluse, W. S.
March, S.
Wallhead, Richard C.


Compton, Joseph
Morris, R. H.
Walsh, Rt. Hon. Stephen


Connolly, M.
Morrison, R. C. (Tottenham, N.)
Warne. G. H.


Dalton, Hugh
Naylor, T. E.
Waits-Morgan, Lt.-Col. D. (Rhondda)


Davies, Evan (Ebbw Vale)
Oliver, George Harold
Webb, Rt. Hon. Sidney


Dennison, R.
Palin, John Henry
Williams, David (Swansea, East)


Duncan, C.
Paling. W.
Williams Dr. J. H. (Llanelly)


Gillett. George M.
Pethick-Lawrence, F. W.
Williams. T. (York, Don Valley)


Gosling, Harry
Ponsonby, Arthur
Wilson, C. H. (Sheffield, Attercliffe)


Graham, Rt. Hon. Wm. (Edin., Cent.)
Potts, John S.
Wilson, R. J. (Jarrow)


Grenfell, D. H. (Glamorgan)
Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring)
Windsor, Walter


Groves, T.
Ritson, J.
Wright, W.


Grundy, T. W.
Robinson, W. C. (Yorks.W.R., Elland)
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—


Hartshorn, Rt. Hon. Vernon
Shaw, Rt. Hon. Thomas (Preston)
Mr. A. Barnes and Mr. Charles Edwards.


Hayes, John Henry
Shepherd, Arthur Lewis



Seventh Resolution agreed to.

Motion made, and Question proposed," That this House doth agree with the Committee in the said Resolution."

Mr. WALSH: May I ask the Secretary of State for War to give further consideration to the case of those members of the Corps of Military Accountants whose positions have now been abolished. I spoke to him the other evening in regard to these men whose situation seems to be peculiarly unfortunate. The terms of their engagement were such that they were entitled to build on those terms a reasonable expectation of long-term service. They would have been pensionable at 14 years; there was an optional pension at 18 years, and their long-service pension would have been due at 21 years. The form signed by those men entitled them to hope that they would have the long-service engagement of 21 years. I do not charge the Department or the Minister with any breach of faith, but I would point out that many of these men have completed 11 years' service, that probably 90 per cent. have performed a greater or lesser amount of combatant service, that many gained high distinctions during the War. In the case of many of them, their service in the Army has involved the sacrifice of positions which they might have obtained in civil life in a number of instances they combined military and professional qualities in their service.
In view of these facts I ask the House to consider the character of the compensation which is being paid. The service already rendered counts for nothing in those cases. In many of the cases that service is 11 years. There are certain cases which appear peculiarly hard, but as hard cases make bad law, I do not intend to press the hardship of any particular case. When people have served nine, 10 or 11 years in this corps, and have combined military with professional services, it is hard in an extreme degree that the service they have given should count for nothing. It is only the un-expired term which counts at all, and it counts at the rate of one week's pay and marriage and ration allowance for every year. I hardly think that this can appear to the right hon. Gentleman or the permanent officials with whom he works, as in any sense proper compensation. An accounting sergeant with 10 years' service still to run, having given 11 years'
service, will get about £112 all together. I speak from memory, but I do not think I am far wrong in that figure. A sergeant-major, who is a warrant officer—Class 1 or Class 2—will get something like 50 per cent. upon that figure. These men were reasonably entitled to look forward to a long period of service in this capacity in the Army, and I feel sure the House will agree that the compensation suggested is not merely inadequate, but approaches meanness.
It may be said that they are receiving what was allowed under the scheme of the Geddes axe. It may be said that they knew their contract of service was liable to be determined. I agree, but a great Department like the War Office and this House exist not merely to carry out the letter of a contract such as this by rigid interpretation, but when misfortune overtakes a body of men like this, we should have regard to the equity of the conditions and act accordingly. I am sure that is the spirit in which the House desires these men to be treated. Two of them have won the Victoria Cross. About 13 have won the Military Cross, and four or five have gained the Distinguished Service Medal. They are all men who have sacrificed prospects in civil life which would have given them infinitely better terms and provided for them in a higher degree than anything the Army has given them. It is true that circumstances have eventuated to put an end to their calling. Like Othello their occupation is gone, but I appeal to the right hon. Gentleman, now that this change has been effected, now that the debates and the arguments about it have passed away, now that it has become ancient history, to consider the treatment of these men, who can only be described by the right hon. Gentleman, himself as unfortunate, and who are the victims of the national pressure for economy. I ask him to see that in their discharge they are treated with some regard to the equity of the case as between them and the nation. They should receive far better treatment than they at present receive, and I hope I do not appeal to the right hon. Gentleman in vain.

The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the WAR OFFICE (Captain Douglas King): I am sure Members in all parts of the House sympathise with any man who at the present time is unfortunate enough to
be deprived of employment. But when dealing with employés of the State, belonging either to the fighting services or the Civil Service, one has to consider the conditions of contract and the conditions of service under which they join, and under which they have been serving. The right hon. Gentleman has pointed out quite fairly that these men, in re-engaging for 21 years, knew from the form which they signed that they were engaging to serve for such further period of 21 years provided their service should be so long required. That was a notice to them when they signed it that there was the possibility that their services would not be so long required. When they signed that agreement, they also had the opportunity of knowing under what conditions they were going to serve. That was all laid down in the Pay Warrant.
In regard to pensions, the ordinary terms of pensions are, of course, service for 21 years, and, as the, right hon. Gentleman remarked, there is also a pension under certain circumstances at 18 years. The pension for 14 years is only payable to those men who are discharged for illness or by reduction of establishment, and 14 years is certainly the very earliest at which any man really attains a right to a pension. Under the terms under which these men re-engaged for 21 years, they knew they could not possibly get a pension should they not serve for at least 14 years. The only right they had under the Pay Warrant was to a gratuity of £1 for each completed year's service. I would like to remind the House of the terms which these men have actually received. They have certainly received all they contracted for, and considerably more, because not merely are they credited with the £1 for each year of service, but £12 is credited to all those men, whether they have reached their 12 years' service or not.
Twelve pounds for 12 years' service is the maximum allowed under the Pay Warrant, and they are all credited with that £12, whether they have served only eight or nine years or whatever it may be. In addition to that, they have all received 28 days' full pay and allowances, whatever their length of service, and further than that—I will not go into all the details—none of them got less than 28 days at a quarter pay and allowances,
but with full marriage allowance, if they were entitled to it, for every uncompleted year of their service. Therefore, in the case that the right hon. Gentleman quoted, if a man had served for 10 years, he got credited for 11 years at 28 days for each of those years at a quarter pay and allowances, but with full marriage allowance. That certainly is considerably more than he was entitled to under the contract which he took up when he re-engaged.
There is also some little misunderstanding with regard to these men as to how they can re-engage. In the ordinary way the majority of the first engagements are for seven years with the Colours and five years with the Reserve. They can extend from their seven years for the 12 years, but their further re-engagement cannot become operative until they have completed 12 years. I believe that sergeants and all non-commissioned officers are entitled to re-engage at the end of their nine years. Their new contract, of course, would not become operative until they had completed their first contract for the 12 years, but they can reengage as from nine years. Therefore, we have some of those cases, which the right hon. Gentleman has mentioned, of men who, though they have not completed their first 12 years, have re-engaged for the 21, and, therefore, might be considered on a pension-able basis. But I want to draw a distinction between a pension-able basis and being due for pension. They could not possibly be eligible for pension until they had done 14 years' service. Compare that with other ranks in the Service who are under similar conditions of being on a pension-able basis, but not yet due for pension, and you will find that officers in the Army are on a pension-able basis from the day they join the Army and receive their commission, but they are not eligible for pension until they have served at least 15 years, and should an officer be discharged at any time, we will say, after he has done 14 years' service, should he be discharged for illness or reduction of establishment, he is not entitled to pension, though he has been on a pension-able basis all those years, because he has not completed his 15 years.
Exactly the same thing occurs in the Civil Service. A civil servant is on a pension-able basis from the time he joins
the Civil Service, but he is not eligible for pension until he has served at least 10 years, and so there is no possible claim on the part of these men to a pension, because, though some of them may have been on a pension-able basis, if they have not completed 14 years they are not eligible for pension. In regard to the hardship of it, the right hon. Gentle man has truly said that these men are being treated under the special terms, which I have already quoted, which were brought into force for those men who were reduced under the Geddes Axe.
The educational officers, who, some two yea is ago, were also reduced in number, were under those terms. They are certainly far more generous terms than have ever been offered before, and when you consider the numbers of men who have already been treated on similar terms, I do not think it can now be claimed that these terms at the present time are ungenerous. Even during the War, if a man with less than 14 years' service was discharged for sickness, he was not entitled to a service pension, and I do not think any hon. Member of this House would claim that members of this Corps of Military Accountants are entitled to more generous treatment in that way than men who were discharged during the War with less than 14 years' service, and yet who were given no service pension. I do not wish to detain the House further, but I hope I have been able to explain to the right hon. Gentleman, if not to convince him—

Mr. WALSH: I ought perhaps to say that I never put forward the plea that these men had a claim to pension. What I am asking is that a somewhat more generous scale of compensation should he given. Of course, in their ease they have not suffered for sickness, but as a matter of fact, they were led to believe over the last six or seven years that theirs would be a continuing occupation. Every Committee that sat, from 1918 right on until 1924, and every hon. and right hon. Member connected with the War Office who spoke, gave these men the impression that theirs was a vocation in the Army that would continue, and with that impression, and with those ideas impressed upon their minds, they
accepted the new offer of a 21 years' engagement. It is because of the expectations that they were legitimately led to establish that I believe these men are entitled to a more generous treatment than has been given to them.

Captain KING: I do not think the right hon. Gentleman would really suggest that fit men who are being discharged on reduction of establishment are entitled to more generous terms than a man who is discharged from the Army because of sickness.

Mr. WALSH: In the one case that is something which is incidental to the man himself. This is the abolition of a corps of men who were led to believe repeatedly year after year that theirs was a continuing occupation, and they signed no new engagement because of that.

Captain KING: No inducement was held out to any individual in that way. There was no undertaking that these men should be employed for 21 years, and, as far as they are concerned, they being fit are in a far better position under these terms than a man discharged for sickness without any pension under similar terms to these men who are being discharged. They have the same terms as the men discharged for sickness.

Ordered, That the Resolution which upon the 8th day of this instant March was reported from the Committee of Supply, and which was then agreed to by the House, be now read:
 That a number of Air Forces, not exceeding 35,500, all ranks, be maintained for the service of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland at Home and Abroad, exclusive of those serving in India, during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1927.

Ordered, That leave be given to bring in a Bill to provide, during Twelve Months, for the Discipline and Regulation of the Army and Air Force; and that Secretary Sir Laming Worthington-Evans, Mr. Bridgeman, Secretary Sir Samuel Hoare, and Captain King do prepare and bring it in.

Orders of the Day — ARMY AND AIR FORCE (ANNUAL) BILL,

" to provide, during Twelve Months, for the Discipline and Regulation of the Army and Air Force," presented accordingly, and read the First time; to be read a Second time To-morrow, and to be printed. [Bill 70.]

The remaining Orders were read, and postponed.

Orders of the Day — ADJOURNMENT.

Resolved," That this House do now adjourn.—[Captain Bowyer.]

Adjourned accordingly at Nine o'Clock.